[CMC] RE : [CESG] Re: Proposed new development time limits

[Lapaian Gerard]

Everybody has a part of the truth.
 
An evident constatation till the new organization is that we cover on the paper a very large domain with always the recurent weakness:the man power in number and in permanecy on the duration.
We can propose what production length we want,the result will be the same if some decision is not taken in front of the situation:
 
Few people dedicated to CCSDS can produce in short time the red-1 book and after only the delay is an internal problem in each agency(review duration)
Many people with very partial time for CCSDS(0.01%) can't propose even a Red 1 book in 2 years
Many people dedicated to CCSDS can produce in short time à Red 1 book.
 
At this point we must not forget that the prototyping activity may have an effect on the total duration.
 
The perimeter of our action must be adapted to our real capacity.
I have always said that the number of WG,BOF was not enough controlled most of them must be killed in the egg 
 
Many agencies complain about the coast of travel of their representatives in different panel.If we were able to make in "dormant" status some WG for 1 year minimum and concentrate the effort on the remaining,may be we can obtain a result in short production of R1 and a strongest support from the mains agencies...
 
But this is typically an CMC concern and job and it is out of my authorized scope.
 
Bien amicalement
 
GL
 
 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] De la part de Adrian J. Hooke
Envoyé : vendredi 28 juillet 2006 18:33
À : CCSDS Management Council; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - ADs
Cc : CCSDS Secretariat
Objet : [CESG] Re: Proposed new development time limits



	--------------------------------------------
	

		At 02:56 AM 7/28/2006, Gilles Moury Gilles:
		... it seems to me that time limits should be at least increased to :
		  - phase 1 : 24 months
		     - phase 2 : 12 months (2 cycles), 18 months (3 cycles)
		     - phase 3 : 6 months

	--------------------------------------------
	

		At 03:22 AM 7/28/2006, Jean-Francois.Kaufeler at esa.int wrote:
		I agree with the principle. I am less sure about the time figures. It would mean 3 years between start of work and standard publication! This may be the case for ISO, but our ambition should be to do it faster e.g. 2 years.

	---------------------------------------------
	
	We clearly have some differing opinions about the amount of time that should be allocated between chartering a Working Group and requiring it to deliver its final product(s).
	
	Many of us favor a short development horizon with very clear stages of development and firm milestones for deliverables. It has also been proposed that the CMC should manage by schedule, and not by resource allocations. If a WG bogs down and fails to meet its deliverables, it's a warning sign that needs the attention of the CMC. Right now, the WGs pretty much set and modify their own schedules and, without an automated mechanism to monitor progress and issue appropriate management alerts, the CMC tends to lose visibility. 
	
	---------------------------------------------
	At 03:52 PM 7/27/2006, Eduardo Bergamini wrote:
	

		Is it not the case to also add a separate track, with an appropriate scheduling, for the document version updating task ?

	---------------------------------------------
	
	Eduardo raises a good point, which is that an update to an existing standard should theoretically require less time than developing a new standard. However, this is not really a separate track: the process for an update (White -> Pink -> Blue/Magenta) is the same for the original development, but the schedule will usually be compressed.
	
	Best regards
	

	Adrian J. Hooke
	Chairman, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group (CESG) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20060801/6ab21ecf/attachment.html