Bruce Silver put an update on the BPMN 2.0 specification he's been participating in, and how its progressing. He pointed out a couple things that I happen to agree with, and if you do too, probably pays to be commenting on Bruce's blog or elsewhere to help generate some public support for his commentary.
First, the focus on a different notion of "executable" BPMN - where all the attributes necessary for executing are available.? That's not a bad notion - I don't think anyone is necessarily "against" it.? But as Bruce points out, we need for BPMN models to conform without being executable - to support use cases for BPMN that are primarily modeling and not execution as schema-valid models (not all processes will be executed).
Its a good read, hope we can hear more about the process before the final submission (or after, as the case may be).? Participating in these efforts is tough for independent consultancies like Bruce because you don't get paid for the work.? For a big company, the contributors may get paid to participate, or they may do it on their own time.? For independents, it hits the bottom line if the work encroaches on work-hours.? Kudos to Bruce for making the time to assist with BPMN 2.0, and I'm sure the spec will be the better for his input.