Well, we already have a sort of a Civil War in SOA, why do not have a SOA Bill of Rights?
Unfortunately, a SOA Bill of Rights is another policy... and enforcement in this case can come from those who disagree... "People have rights for information" - It is only unclear how a country which preserves a right for private property, which recognizes information as a property, does not have a right for private information. I mean, a SOA Bill of Rights may be as controversial as anything else. For example, I would like to have a right having bagels instead of donuts... How about a Business Plan for SOA Governance? For the start: 1) separate governance function from management function 2) recommend rational set of governance controls (along the project life-cycle) 3) recommend minimal requirements for SOA testing tools 4) identify early stages where SO development must closely collaborate with business clients like Concept and Proposal stages 5) elaborate on end-to-end vision of SOA service 6) ... - Michael ----- Original Message ---- From: mikomatsumura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:38:52 AM Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Is Governance Killing SOA: Part 2 Aha! I knew there was something clever in Jeff's overly simplified wording. A Rorchach test =) Jeff's follow up question about "too much Type A" is a reasonable one... My view is related to the concept of a "more perfect union" as mentioned in the preamble of the US Constitution (which of course establishes a Federated government). Thomas Jefferson speaks well to this topic: "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429 Enforcement of policy can either be the enforcement of a previously existing *agreement* or it can be a central mandate without any bilateral consent. Some forms of Governance are pretty clearly bilateral, such as enforcement of service level *agreement*. So contracts are entered into by two parties both seeking their own interest and therefore explicitly consent. So the policies that you are probably worried about are the ones that ostensibly arent enacted between peer groups--to some extent this is the function of the legislative group known as the COE (Center of Excellence) or Competency Center or whatever you want to call it. Now if you look at the establishment of the Federal Government in the United States Constitution, the implicit Jeffersonian "consent" is reflected in the fact that States have unlimited sovereignty while the Federal Government has explicitly limited sovereignty. Also, the Federal government has a tripartite structure including an independent judiciary as well as a legislative function which manifests consent through elected representation (congress). In fact, enough people were uncomfortable with the implicit Jeffersonian consent that the first ten amendments were declared (the Bill of Rights) to explicitly curtail the power of the Federal Government. Long analogy, but all I'm trying to say is there are good ways and crappy ways of creating and enforcing policy and the "consent of the governed" is a theme that is often lost. Maybe we need an SOA Bill of Rights? 1) Free Speech: some kind of annotation system that allows (wiki style) anyone affected by a policy to provide feedback (such as "this is stupid and here's why") for anyone to read 2) Right to bear arms: dunno... maybe squirt-guns? Someone proposes a dumb policy in your CoE and you get to squirt them with water? 3) Protection from quartering troops heh.. how about a rule against having more than fifty percent of any meeting be from IBM =) 4) Protection from search and seizure ... 5) Due Process Is there a need for an independent judiciary for SOA? etc... The only other right I would like to preserve is the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. This might limit the duration of CoE meetings to 2 hours and would demand the presence of snacks such as donuts. Miko --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, "jeffrschneider" <jeffrschneider@ ...> wrote: > > "Is Governance Killing SOA?" is my simple Rorschach personality test. > --- > > When you read the question did you understand the question to mean: > A. Is a LACK of governance killing SOA? > or > B. Is TOO MUCH governance killing SOA? > or > C. Is IMPROPER governance killing SOA? > > Although some people interpret the question to have other meanings, > it has been my observation that most people think A or B. > > After asking this a number of times, my informal results have led to > two distinct results: > 1. Enterprise Architects, I.T. Analysts, Press and Product Marketers > almost always interpret the question to mean "A" (lack of governance) > and > 2. Application architects, software developers and project managers > almost always interpret the question to mean "B" or "C" (too much or > poor governance) > > This begs the question, if Type "A" personalities get their way - > will the situation be improved? > > Jeff >
