[CMC] RE: CMC-P-2006-07-001: Authorization to discontinue formal CESG review

[Adrian J. Hooke]

One of the reviewers asked: "It is not clear what is the problem". I think 
that the problem is as follows:

1. Approval of most work items and documents has been via a fairly long, 
2-step serial polling process:
    A. A 2-3 week CESG poll
    B. A 2-3 week CMC poll

2. Experience has shown that (for a variety of reasons, the major one of 
which is lack of time) it is very difficult to get all Area Directors to 
vote in the CESG poll. That creates a problem:  we either interpret all 
missing votes as "yes"; or we go back and try to re-poll everyone. 
Sometimes this creates a serious log-jam, with a work item stuck in an 
endless loop of CESG polling delays until it eventually gets lost.

We discussed this at length in Rome and it was very clear that Area 
Directors become overwhelmed by the sheer volume and diversity of work that 
they are asked to review in detail. It was the consensus of the CESG that 
it would be much more effective if the responsibility for ensuring proper 
review was placed on the Area Director who wants to advance the work. With 
this concept, an Area Director will only get asked (by another Area 
Director) to review work in detail that has a probable impact on his or her 
Area, not everything that comes out of every Area. If this occurs, the CESG 
review doesn't disappear but it gets pushed back earlier in the cycle and 
securing the proper cross-Area review becomes a matter of professional 
responsibility instead of bureaucratic rote.

The problem comes when an Area Director does *not* secure the proper level 
of review and a work item reaches the CMC that has an undiscovered overlap 
with another Area. That's why we proposed a final safety net to catch such 
errors via a single joint CESG/CMC poll, with the CESG looking at each item 
from a final technical perspective and the CMC from a management 
perspective. Theoretically, this would require a double failure - a failure 
by the originating Area Director to secure proper cross-Area review, and a 
failure by the CESG reviewers to catch an overlap at the last minute - for 
a technical conflict to slip through to the CMC.

I personally think that the proposed new system is more effective. One way 
to quell some of the CMC's concerns may be to make it mandatory for every 
Area Director to cast a vote in the joint CESG/CMC poll, and to hold Area 
Directors accountable if they delay the work-flow by not voting. At that 
stage, any lack of attention by the Area Directors would become immediately 
obvious to the CMC.

Best regards
Adrian Hooke,
Chairman, CESG

>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2006-07-001: Authorization to discontinue 
>formal CESG review for Standards and non-Standards Track documents
>
>Results of CMC poll beginning 14 July 2006 and ending 11 August 2006:
>
>                 ADOPT: 5 (62.5%) (ASI, CSA, ESA, INPE, NASA)
>   ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 0 (0%)
>                REJECT: 0 (0%)
>  REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 3 (37.5%) (CNES, DLR, JAXA)
>
>      CNES: Why is the CMC asked as it seems it is already in place at the 
> CESG level ?
>The implications seem to be with the procedures but maybe also with the 
>overall organization ... Is there a plan to combine CESG and CMC some day ?
>It is not clear what is the problem:
>- delays are not that long with e-polls ; we are granted a couple of weeks 
>on votes, not months !
>- the CESG members do not often vote : this is a problem, but will it 
>change with the proposed process ? If they don't do it while they have a 
>"must" on it, why would they do it when it is changed to a "may". Will it 
>work better with more people involved ?
>The CESG and CMC votes have different meanings and the CMC cannot cumulate 
>both, under the current organization:
>1) The CESG review is intended to validate the form and the contents of 
>the documents before the formal agency reviews ; any cross area 
>disagreement on technical issues is to be solved in this forum. 
>Previously, there were cases of documents with negative votes at CESG level.
>The CMC poll is not for a review of the documents but for a go-ahead on 
>the agency review. The CMC cannot endorse the responsibility to place for 
>review a document of poor technical quality or which conflicts with other 
>documents.
>2) The polls on new charters are validated at the technical level by the 
>CESG and the CMC approval mainly concentrates on the resources. Another 
>poll proposes to cancel the resource information in the charters : will 
>the CMC be the judge for the technical contents of the documents ?
>3) The polls for publication may be less critical as the AD may confirm to 
>the CMC that the Agency Review was completed satisfactorily, but this only 
>works if the CESG was consulted before the Agency Review.
>      DLR: The role of the CMC - as long as I understand it is to take the 
> technical approval of the CESG and give a go ahead. So the level of 
> preparing a document up to the level of an agency agreement will be on 
> the level of the CESG.
>      ESA: Makes sense
>      JAXA: My understanding is that the role of CESG is different from 
> the CMC, therefore inclusive technical approval should be executed by CESG.
>
>Results are based on responses from 8 out of 10 members (80%).
>
>No response was received from the following Agencies:
>
>BNSC
>FSA
>
>Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Rejected
>Resulting CMC Resolution: None
>Inferred Secretariat Action: No Action
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20060817/7a195ebf/attachment.htm