[CESG] RE: CMC Agenda - Juan Miro comments

[Hooke, Adrian J (9000)]

Area Directors -  some points from Juan’s note…


Ø  when we meet with the CESG we can receive an updated and realistic plan for 2012.

This will only happen if all the WG chairs update all their projects before the CMC meeting, which is unlikely as most of them will be traveling home.  I’m not sure what form it would take, other than scrolling down the “all items” framework line-by-line.  I don’t think that even the CMC would have the stomach to do that.


Ø  Is it possible to obtain the support of the area directors to pass this action to the WG chairs before the workshop?

Once again, all that you ADs can do is to instruct your WG chairs to update their project pages prior to the meeting and again immediately after the meeting. But there is no way that the latter is going to get done by Monday 23 April.


Ø  This would allow to take advantage of the WG meetings to consolidate the schedules and have the updated document production plan for the CMC meeting.
This might happen if the CMC meeting was a month after Darmstadt, but it is not going to happen this time around.


Ø  It should be also confirmed that this new work will not affect or delay ongoing work of higher priority.

This seems to pit standard versus standard. First of all, we do not have any kind of a list of CCSDS priorities from the CMC – we look (possibly erroneously) to the IOAG to do that for us, and they are only focused on a core part of the end-end system. For instance, if a set of agency sponsors wanted a new CCSDS standard that is outside of the IOAG domain of competence and they had a clear high priority need for it, would we turn them away just because our dance card is full with satisfying the IOAG? I think not. Do we agree that we do not want to get into the sort of bottomless pit of prioritization that the IAOG has been trying to climb out of?


Ø  The resource governance model should in my opinion also be used for the approval of new working groups/work items. The support of the member Agencies in terms of resources should be measured before embarking in new work.

I think that this reinforces my last point: we have adopted the Golden Rule – he with the most gold rules. Do we see any reason to change that in favor of some kind of abstract prioritization?

Comments welcome.

///a

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Juan.Miro at esa.int<mailto:Juan.Miro at esa.int> [mailto:Juan.Miro at esa.int]<mailto:[mailto:Juan.Miro at esa.int]>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 11:34 AM
To: Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01); Soula Jean-Marc; CCSDS Mgt Council; sun huixian; zhangrusheng at cnsa.gov.cn<mailto:zhangrusheng at cnsa.gov.cn>
Cc: cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [CMC] RE: CMC Agenda topics


Dear Mike and all,

I very much support the point made by Jean-Mark to reinforce a resource driven governance of the CCSDS work plans. We already discussed this point in Moscow and at the end we agreed in starting an exercise to ask the member Agencies for clear statements on support and resources for CSS standards. I would now like to propose to extend this action to the other areas as well.

I also expect that during the workshop the plans for document production in the individual working groups will be consolidated and when we meet with the CESG we can receive an updated and realistic plan for 2012. Today the plan is to produce 42 documents this year when the yearly average is around 10. Is it possible to obtain the support of the area directors to pass this action to the WG chairs before the workshop? This would allow to take advantage of the WG meetings to consolidate the schedules and have the updated document production plan for the CMC meeting.

The resource governance model should in my opinion also be used for the approval of new working groups/work items. The support of the member Agencies in terms of resources should be measured before embarking in new work. It should be also confirmed that this new work will not affect or delay ongoing work of higher priority.

This brings up also the topic of priorities and relationships between standards, ii.e. what is the order of precedence (what standard is building upon another), complementarity (what standards belong together in order to achieve a certain standardisation goal) hierarchy (successive elaboration ) etc.

I think the agenda points you propose are adequate to discuss these topic. The online tool and tables are a help to implement and document such an approach.

Regards and happy Easter Holiday to all.
Juan


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20120405/39196494/attachment-0001.htm