Thomas,
I don't think that a rewrite of the document will happen whenever
custodial authority is passed to another individual. I think that the
tone and style of the document will be established early on, and
adjustments will be made during the draft->review->draft cycle.
If the majority of the TC feels we need a single editor to act as style
and scope guardian, I would hope that the final document would not
attribute that individual any differently than the other editors. And
yes, I feel the same way regardless of who this person is.
-Matt
Thomas Erl wrote:
> Matt,
>
> I don't think anyone is assuming that those who volunteered to
> participate as editors have poor writing skills or lack the ability to
> follow a plan. Individuals do, however, have different writing styles
> and preferences. By rotating custodianship you subject the document to
> these differences. How does this improve consistency?
>
> Thomas
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew MacKenzie" <>
> To: "Thomas Erl" <>
> Cc: "Rich Salz" <>; <>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 10:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Proposed Role Descriptions for SOA-RM Editors
>
>
>> You're right if you assume that a large percentage of the editing
>> team have poor writing skills and are not capable of sticking to the
>> overall documentation plan.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with most of the people who have signed up to become
>> editors of this specification, so I am assuming (optimist that I am)
>> that a chief cat herder / grammar coach will not be required.
>>
>> Consistency can be achieved by simply agreeing on format and tone.
>> Daily at work I see hundreds of examples of this working in
>> everything from source code to product manuals.
>>
>> -Matt
>> Thomas Erl wrote:
>>
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> The SOA Reference Model we are about to put together will establish
>>> abstract and foundation concepts upon which any number of
>>> implementation specifications could eventually be based. The clarity
>>> in which this document expresses these concepts is therefore, in my
>>> opinion, extremely important. More so than in other technical
>>> specifications that describe languages and implementation details,
>>> concepts covered by this document must be defined clearly and
>>> unambiguously.
>>>
>>> I believe that an informal or casual collaboration process could
>>> jeopardize the quality and potential of this document. Typically, a
>>> resource dedicated to pulling everything together will ensure that
>>> content remains consistent throughout the TC process. I am doubtful
>>> that consistency is improved by rotating custodians.
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew MacKenzie"
>>> <>
>>> To: "Rich Salz" <>
>>> Cc: <>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 6:09 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Proposed Role Descriptions for SOA-RM Editors
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rich,
>>>>
>>>> You're right that someone has to drive, maybe we should just rotate
>>>> responsibilities. It sure would be nice to have perforce, cvs or
>>>> subversion available to us.
>>>>
>>>> I think we just need a process, and here is what I am thinking:
>>>>
>>>> 1. One person "drives" the task of developing the specification
>>>> outline. By drive, I mean, commits the outline to a document and
>>>> revises based on TC consensus.
>>>> 2. Parallel to the outline development, editing team decides on
>>>> document format and process, develops prelim schedule.
>>>> 3. Outline potentially becomes a "master document" -- containing
>>>> the ToC and boilerplate stuff.
>>>> 4. Work from the outline is split up, individual editors work on
>>>> their chunk(s) of work and keep them updated in Kavi using some
>>>> kind of naming scheme (e.g. s1_Introduction.(doc|xml))
>>>> 5. Master spec custodian (1 month shifts?) integrates individual
>>>> chunks to the master specification every 2-4 weeks, and issues a
>>>> "draft" for general consumption.
>>>>
>>>> That's my idea of how this should go.
>>>>
>>>> -matt
>>>>
>>>> On 23-Mar-05, at 8:59 AM, Rich Salz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, I am not in favor of having multiple "editors". I am,
>>>>>> however, all for having multiple "authors".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Conventionaly, the WG members are the authors, and those who do
>>>>> most of
>>>>> the text management, often incorporating directly text sent from
>>>>> the WG,
>>>>> are the editors.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the "chief" question, I propose the editors work it out
>>>>> amongst
>>>>> themselves. I'll offer the suggestion that there should always be
>>>>> someone
>>>>> "in charge" so everyone has the clear expectation as to who owns the
>>>>> definitive copy. This *will* come up; someone will ask "is that
>>>>> in the
>>>>> latest draft", and it will be frustrating to have email from n-1
>>>>> editors
>>>>> saying "I didn't do it" and the n'th say "yes", or, more likely,
>>>>> "was that
>>>>> my task?" Perhaps it should rotate on some basis. Or if there are
>>>>> multiple documents, divide accordingly.
>>>>> /r$
>>>>> --
>>>>> Rich Salz Chief Security Architect
>>>>> DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
>>>>> XS40 XML Security Gateway
>>>>> http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
