0) Remember the goal of governance is to improve things This is the first rule that I put in all engagements, what is done should demonstrably improve the situation if it doesn't then don't do it. Too often people create elaborate governance frameworks (or application frameworks) for a set of perceived "perfect" needs when a much simpler solution would be more appropriate for where they are. These complex solutions then often create more issues as they assume a perfect state.
Governance is a classic area where the CYA mob can drag down efforts into the mire. I'm a type A-C I think there is too little governance and what there is tends to be focused in the wrong area. Steve 2008/7/21 Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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 >> > > >
