[Cesg-all] BOFs

[Adrian J. Hooke]

At 02:19 AM 6/3/2005, Patrick.Plancke at esa.int wrote:
>Our understanding of the restructuration as discussed in Matera, was not 
>that BOF has not to systematically create a working group.  As well a  BOF 
>could be funded or self-funded. Their discussion may rather impact 
>activity of an on going working group(s)  (like plug and play) or in 
>finale come to the conclusion that there is no matter to create a working
>group. Anyway decison to create eventually a new working group needs to be 
>reviewed in a global perspective within an Area (schedule, support) that 
>may fluctuate with time.  Also if I take the example of the wireless BOF, 
>it is self financed by
>interested departments of Agencies and Industry.

Area Directors: here's the extract for the CCSDS processes document 
<http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/A02x1y2.pdf>CCSDS A02.1-Y-2 
as they pertain to BOFs. Please note the highlighted sentence:
1.6     BIRDS-OF-A-FEATHER GROUPS (BOFs)
In order to form a Working Group, it is first required to articulate the 
technical concept, draft a charter, appoint someone who is able to be 
chair, and demonstrate that resources can be secured to do the work. 
Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) groups are formed in order to get support for 
establishing an eventual CCSDS Working Group, not to work the details of a 
particular technical concept. Many BOFs don't turn into WGs for a variety 
of reasons, such as not enough people can reach agreement on a focus for 
the work, a credible source of sponsorship cannot be demonstrated, or the 
work is not aligned with the overall goals of CCSDS.
Although many BOFs will be initiated from inside the CCSDS organization in 
order to respond to concrete or prospective customer needs, anyone (from 
any organization and not necessarily already affiliated with CCSDS) can 
start a BOF with a view towards convincing an Area Director that the 
project is worthwhile and is a positive contribution to the work of CCSDS. 
A face-to-face meeting is useful for this, although it is not necessary to 
wait for a meeting opportunity to get some work done, such as setting up an 
informal mailing list, writing and circulating a CCSDS Concept Paper that 
outlines the proposed technical scope of the work, and starting to discuss 
a charter. BOF meetings have a very different tone than WG meetings - their 
focus is create a good charter with good milestones, and to prove that 
there are enough resources potentially available to do the work needed in 
order to create standards.

At such time as a BOF feels that it has enough agreement to propose 
formation of a WG, it must schedule a meeting with an AD to present its 
case. The AD makes the initial determination as to whether to advocate the 
work further, or to recommend more BOF work on the charter and resource 
plan, or to reject the proposal. If the AD recommends acceptance of the 
proposal, the draft charter and resource plan, accompanied by a CCSDS 
Concept Paper outlining its technical scope, is forwarded to the CESG for a 
decision. If the AD rejects the proposal, the BOF can appeal to the CESG 
chairman for a wider hearing, or it can simply dissolve.
As Patrick and the processes document both note, a BOF can be completely 
self-financed, i.e., it can be supported and staffed outside of the formal 
CCSDS Agency resource envelopes. However, a first problem arises when such 
a BOF wants to meet during a CCSDS meeting and therefore starts to consume 
both hosting resources and the time of CCSDS attendees. We have had several 
cases recently where a plethora of unofficial BOF meetings cause personnel 
conflicts with other meetings and unusual peaks in the number of meeting 
rooms needed. Coupled with the various joint meetings and special interest 
groups, unrestricted BOFs can rapidly cause meeting hosts to go into 
meltdown. A second problem arises when a BOF is not self-funded but it 
needs the CCSDS Agencies to contribute human/travel resources to its 
activities. In that case, the BOF may "rob" approved WGs of their resources.

Accordingly, it has been our general custom to require that a BOF itself 
has a charter, schedule and a resource request. That way we can track the 
progress of each BOF towards its principal goal, which is not to create a 
standard but to get a formal WG chartered to create a standard. It is 
therefore very important that open-ended BOFs should not be allowed, 
because they tend to drift along and to start doing technical work, in 
which case they may become a parasitic substitute for a WG.

Each Area Director is therefore responsible for strictly controlling the 
activities of BOFs and for being mindful that since their primary purpose 
is to get a WG chartered, it is important that their conclusion is 
synchronized with the Agency funding cycle. For instance, we are just about 
to update the CCSDS Operating Plan and to request the CMC to commit 
resources for an 18-month period (Fall 2005 - Spring 2007) to the approved 
WGs. Once Agency funding is committed, it will be difficult to make changes 
unless a particular BOF reaches its conclusion in synchronization with the 
next funding cycle, or with the planned closure of an approved WG at some 
mid-point in the cycle.

So please, Area Directors, look across your BOFs and make sure that their 
activities are properly limited and that if they do produced a 
recommendation for a WG that will require CCSDS Agency resources, there is 
some reasonable expectation that the resources will be available. If you 
have any BOFs that failed to reach consensus within a reasonable period of 
time (say 6-months), please consider closing them down until there is a 
clearer consensus that the work is needed and can be supported.

Best regards
Adrian

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20050606/aac4fbed/attachment.html