[CESG] Proposed changes to the CCSDS Yellow Book

[Shames, Peter M (312B)]

Dear Nestor,

I have to admit to being a little puzzled by some of the points that you are trying to make, but I may be mis-understanding your intent.  Comments / questions are provided in-line below.

I have the sense that we may be getting into issues of territorial / organizational interest as opposed to seeking what is best for the health of CCSDS.   I hope that we can keep that goal in mind as we seek answers to these questions.

Thanks, Peter



From: <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> on behalf of Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>
Date: Monday, September 21, 2015 at 9:45 AM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: [CESG] Proposed changes to the CCSDS Yellow Book

Dear all,

Some items for consideration when discussing (during our next CESG webex) the update of the YB wrt WG Chairs nomination.

  1.  The WG Chair / Deputy Chairs have also a resource component. Do we need to address this ? (The Proc Doc makes it quite clear what the WG chair duties are (2.3.3.4), likewiese the AD (2.3.2.4.3).  Does it add anything to also state “Doing this work takes resources?”)
  2.  WG Chairs / Deputy Chairs usually emerged from the hard work done during the BOF existence. Do we need to specify that the BoF proposes Chairs  when discussing the charter ? See Note below (I thought that this was already covered in 2.3.4, perhaps it needs further clarification beyond what else we are discussing.)
  3.  AD / DAD of the Area on which the WG resides, should have some "say" in the whole discussion Do we need to address this point ? (The Proc Doc already says that the AD proposes the WG chair. “2.3.3.4 Working Group chairs are nominated by an Area Director and approved by the CESG.”)

  4.  During polls if AD says "approve" and DAD says "disapproved, the vote that counts is the AD one (as per Proc & Org YB). Just imagine an AD and a DAD nominating different candidates for the WG posts. How will we proceed ? Is this important or not ?  (The Proc Doc says that the AD is “A member of the CESG as the single representative of the CCSDS technical Area;”  It does not confer any such responsibility or role for the DAD.  To suggest otherwise is a little like giving the President or Prime Minister and also their deputies the same role and responsibility.  This is not usually considered to be a good idea since it leads to confusion.)
  5.  Considering that  the ADs / DADs do not represent all the Agencies and they are always defending their principle to be "Agency agnostic" when voting, I can not imaging ADs/ DADs nominating candidates from other Agencies. Do we include in the YB that AD or DAD can only nominate a candidate from his Agency ? Is this compatible with the AD independence from his/her Agency ?  (This seems like a peculiar position to take.  Why would you want to restrict an AD to only nominate from his/her agency?  If we really want ADs to be agency agnostic (and we now say they should be) we should encourage them to seek qualified candidates from any agency (or other sponsored organizations), as stated in 2.3.2.4.1)
How can an UKSA candidate be nominated (when UKSA has currently no representativeness in the CESG)? Will NASA/ESA  ADs nominate an UKSA or CNSA or FSA staff  or etc.? Is it allowed that an AD nominates a candidate from other Agency ? What happens if there are resource issues for the candidate in case he/she is not participating in CCSDS?  (I think that this can be resolved by asking the CMC and the CESG for qualified candidates.  Presumably only candidates who are available and supported will be proposed. This request goes to all CCSDS member agencies.  Do you want to cast the nets wider than that?)

Note: Is the below proposal a good one ?

  *   BOF proposes the leading Agencies for Chair / Deputy Chair (consulted previously with the related Agency's representatives) and its potential candidates
     *   In case of an existing WG chair / deputy chair replacement , the AD consults and agree the nomination with the WG members  (and the related CMC representatives)

Why not just ask the CMC and CESG at the outset if they have candidates for the WG chair position?  That gets the widest possible CCSDS member agency view.

  *   AD consults in addition the CMC members for potential extra candidates.
     *   If no additional candidate is nominated, the AD raises a resolution to initiate the CESG poll (including the candidates selected by the BOF or existing WG)
     *   If additional candidates are nominated, a negotiation is started between the related stakeholders (including the CMC representatives) until an agreement is reached, after which AD raises the resolution for the CESG poll.


Last but not least, I have some comments on Peter's proposal (in blue) and my comments (in green)

  *   NOTE – To help achieve agency balance the AD proposing the Chair is strongly encouraged to ask the CMC and the member agencies for nominees for new WG Chair or Deputy.
See my note above
  *   To help achieve agency balance the AD is strongly encouraged to ask the CMC and CESG for nominees for new WG Chair or Deputy (See my note above).  A WG may also have a Deputy Chair, but this is not required. A WG should have always a Deputy Chair (unless it is demonstrated why not)    As a general principle, to avoid conflicts of interest or scheduling, a single person may only be the Chair or Deputy of one WG at a time. OK if we also add "As a general principle, to avoid conflicts of interest or scheduling an AD / DAD should not be Chair or Deputy of a WG."

There has never been a requirement for a Deputy WG chair.  What is the rationale for always requiring this?

The primary issue that I thought was being addressed was that there would be direct scheduling conflicts if one person were to be both a WG chair or Deputy chair of two different large WG both of which met for 3-4 days during the week.  One person cannot readily be in two places at once.  That is simple physics.

However, Since the duties and meetings of an AD do not typically concide with the duties and meetings of a WG chair it is not clear to me why this is seen as a “scheduling” concern.  Furthermore, since the work of a WG must align, by definition, with the goals of an Area I am having a tough time seeing this as a source of “conflicts of interest” as far as the technical work is concerned.    Please explain why you think either of these conflicts might be an issue.

As with the consensus topic I did a little research on the web.  I found some useful materials at http://www.w3.org/Guide/chair-roles, at http://www.iso.org/sites/directives/directives.html#toc_marker-10, and at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt

Such as:

What to look for when choosing a chair

The following bullets based on suggestions from Joseph Reagle

  *   Experience in chairing similar groups, committees, and/or conferences;
  *   Previous participation or technical contributions in related communities;
  *   Ability to satisfy the time commitment (from you and/or your organization/management);
  *   Familiarity and/or willingness to learn W3C process and document formatting rules;
  *   The ability to keep the Working Group "in Charter", both for technical and IPR issues;
  *   The ability (both actual and perceived by the Working Group -- including potential competitors) to forge consensus fairly and without bias from your affiliation/employer and, sometimes, even your own technical positions.

Perhaps we need to look outside our own interests and practices in order to come up with a better formulation for this?  We could even, if we wished, define a voting process for candidates such as defined here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting.   I believe that the important thing has always been that we have qualified candidates with the necessary technical and leadership skills and also the backing of their agencies to provide resources.

Ciao, Peter


ciao
nestor

This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20150921/d7683396/attachment.html>