W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2004

Re: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)

From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:49:34 -0000
Message-ID: <05a601c4c580$a4912d40$850a090a@exhp>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>

> > The point is that WS-Addressing was developed by a group of
> > companies in
> > private.
> And my point is that producing something from scratch in a WG does not
> always result in a spec everyone is happy with.

Not always, but neither does rubberstamping.

> Also, I thought anyone was welcome to participate in the
> feedback/interop workshops...

Without getting into politics, there were legal issues with the
participation agreement that meant some companies weren't able to attend.
Then of course there's the fact that those workshops were distinct events
and if you missed them, what happens?

> > The fact is that we're in a TC where votes count now. So
> > let's tackle each
> > *reasonable* issue (and I think wsa:Action as optional is
> > reasonable) and
> > vote on it.
> While I realise that voting on a per company basis is possible, I
> *think* we're supposed to be concensus based. That said, on issues where
> it's obvious no-one is going to 'cross the house' then perhaps the best
> approach is to just vote and move on.

Agreed, which is what I said over the weekend. The issue is raised, let's
discuss and then vote.

> > How much more democractic can we get in this industry?
> Perhaps you are assuming that democracy always produces good
> specifications. I'm sure that sometimes it does. I'm equally sure there
> are instances where it does not.

Not really: I'm assuming that it gives everyone the chance to participate at
the same level. That's an important difference.

> > IMO
> > that's far better for the industry as a whole than saying
> > (and I paraphrase
> > here) "if you don't like it use something else".
> It is a rare spec that makes everyone happy. I'd love to produce such a
> spec in this WG. But I think a more realistic view is that the spec we
> finally ship will NOT be such a beast. In terms of broad adoption, I
> have some idea of who I need to make happy in order for the spec to be
> widely implemented.



> Gudge
> >
> > My agenda is not to derail this standard effort. It's to get
> > something out
> > that fits well into the other *standards* that are around and
> > with products
> > that we are all using and/or developing.
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> > ----
> > Mark Little,
> > Chief Architect,
> > Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
> >
> > www.arjuna.com
> >
> >
> >
Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 10:48:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:21 UTC