All,
I'm going to pile on to Jim's comments.
On a personal level, I'm deeply offended that the members from
Oracle have decided to undercut the professional value of our
collective contributions to this effort, and keep us all from being
able to say that we contributed to the successful completions of
this standard. Instead of merely abstaining, their vote deliberately
torpedoes the efforts of so many for so long. Given that I've worked
relatively closely with those of you from Oracle for so long, at
least some personal recognition for the rest of us, and our
efforts, would have been gracious - even if you're forced to toe the
company line. But no.
On a professional level, given the absence of technical concerns
behind the "no" votes, I think I need to relate back to the rest of
my company that Oracle's presence on any future TC should perhaps be
considered toxic to the work of that TC:
Oracle might torpedo a specification near the end of an
effort, leaving a cloud of IP-uncertainty over the use of the
technologies covered by the spec.
Oracle's TC involvement should be treated as suspect - the TC
may just end up being an enormous waste of the time, because
Oracle may behave like the playground bully, and take all the
toys and head home.
Not sure this is really the message that Oracle wishes to send to
the rest of the companies involved at OASIS.
I'd like to hear from the folks at Oracle as to how we can move
forward, either with or without them.
Eric.
On 6/9/13 12:43 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
All,
I am surprised at the 'No' vote on the Web Service Binding
Committee Specification ballot as no objections were raised
when we discussed the ballot during the last TC call. Doing so
would have allowed members to address concerns directly.
Unfortunately, the reasons provided for the 'No' votes cast
by Oracle are extremely subjective and offer no constructive
way forward. Explaining Oracle's position, Anish said the 'No'
votes were a corporate decision predicated on the opinion that
"uptake
of SCA by the industry has fallen well short of
expectations" and not due to technical concerns. A single
organization has blocked the advancement of a committee
draft specification because in their view it is no longer
relevant to the "industry".
Based
on the ballot outcome, it appears the other TC voting
members - who represent a wide industry cross-section -
disagree with that assessment. I would like to present the
following facts which highlight how SCA is still a relevant
technology:
1. There are no other standards which address what SCA
does, composite services in a Service-Oriented Architecture
(SOA).
2. Major vendors holding significant market share have
invested in SCA-based products and runtimes including IBM,
TIBCO, RedHat and Siemens.
3. There are at least five *active* independent open source
SCA implementations. There are not many other middleware
standards with five open source implementations, including
Java EE:
a. Apache Tuscany
b. Fabric3
c. Trentino
d. FraSCAti
e. SwitchYard
4. The SCA standards are supported and used by a wide
variety of industry participants including vendors,
corporations, open source organizations, and individuals.
Relegating SCA - which has received positive technical
reviews in the industry - to permanent CSD status would be a
disservice to the early adopters of SCA who looked to OASIS
for standards leadership. Furthermore, leaving the SCA
specifications in non-Final form will create significant
legal issues for existing SCA implementations. The OASIS IPR
policy (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/ipr)
implies that if the SCA specifications are not made Final, a
TC Party does not have a Contribution Obligation. This
leaves those responsible for SCA implementations open to
patent claims from other TC Parties.
Impeding the specifications based solely on the belief that
they are not relevant to the industry rather than on technical
grounds strikes me as arbitrary and insufficient.
Jim
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:29 PM,
Simon Holdsworth <>
wrote:
Folks,
As attached, the Committee
Specification
ballot has closed. The results were 7 in favour, 3
against. Due
to the super majority rules, the ballot has failed given
more than 25%
voted against it.
I'd like to invite the voters
against
to respond with any reasons for their choice, to help
the TC understand
how we could proceed with the move to Committee
Specification status that
the majority of the voting members desire, given that no
issues have been
raised with the specification document itself.
Thanks, Simon
From:
<>
To:
Simon
Holdsworth/UK/IBM@IBMGB,
Date:
01/06/2013
01:07
Subject:
[sca-bindings]
Groups
- Ballot closed: "Approve SCA Web Service Binding
Specification
v1.1 as a Committee Specification"
Sent by:
"Approve SCA Web Service Binding
Specification
v1.1 as a Committee Specification" has closed.
Ballot
Title: Approve
SCA Web Service Binding Specification v1.1
as a Committee Specification
Question
Do members of the SCA Bindings TC approve SCA
Web Service Binding Specification
V1.1 [1] with Non-Material Changes [2] and
Designated Cross-Reference Changes
[3] as a Committee Specification?
Description
This ballot requires a Special Majority Vote
[4]. The TC roster currently
lists 10 voting members. In order to pass, at
least 7 members have to vote
Yes and no more than 2 members may vote No.
[1] URI for the specification
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/49161/sca-wsbinding-1.1-spec-csprd03-rev1.doc
[2] The Working Draft for this Committee
Specification contains changes
made since its last public review. The changes
made are documented in http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/49163/sca-wsbinding-1.1-spec-csprd03-rev1-diff.doc.
The TC judges these changes to be Non-Material
Changes in accordance with
the definition in the OASIS TC Process (http://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#dNonmaterialChange).
[3] This Specification Approval Motion includes
the following Designated
Cross-Reference Changes requested in accordance
with the requirements of
Section 2.19 of the TC Process (http://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#crossRefs):
- Current reference to be updated: line 31:
[SCA-Assembly] OASIS Committee
Specification Draft 07, Service Component
Architecture Assembly Model Specification
Version 1.1, January 2011 http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-assembly-1.1-spec-csd07.pdf
Expected approval status and date: Committee
Specification, May 2013
- Current reference to be updated: line 35:
[SCA-Policy] OASIS Committee
Draft 04, SCA Policy Framework Specification
Version 1.1, September 2010
http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-policy/sca-policy-1.1-spec-cd04.pdf
Expected approval status and date: Committee
Specification, May 2013
- Current reference to be updated: line 38:
[SCA-JCAA] OASIS Committee
Specification Draft 05, Service Component
Architecture SCA-J Common Annotations
and APIs Specification Version 1.1, November
2010 http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-j/sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-csd05.pdf
Expected approval status and date: Committee
Specification, May 2013
- Current reference to be updated: line 91:
[WS-Testcases] OASIS Committee
Draft 01, "TestCases for the SCA Web Service
Binding Specification
Version 1.1", July 2010, http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-bindings/sca-wsbinding-1.1-testcases-cd01.pdf
Expected approval status and date: Replace with
Latest version link.
The TC acknowledges that approval and
publication of the specification
may be delayed by the Designated Cross-Reference
Changes."
[4] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2010-07-28.php#dSpecialMajority
Voting Results
10 of 10 eligible voters cast their vote before
the deadline. - Yes received
7 Votes - No received 3 Votes - Abstain received
0 Votes The ballot received
0 comments.
View
Results
Group:
OASIS Service Component Architecture
/ Bindings (SCA-Bindings) TC
Date Opened: Friday, 24 May 2013 @ 12:00
am UTC
Date Closed: Friday, 31 May 2013 @ 11:59
pm UTC
Referenced
Items
02418:
Approve SCA Web Service Binding
Specification v1.1 as a Committee
Specification
(16K)
2013-05-31
Download
| View
Details
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and
Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
Hampshire PO6
3AU
