[CMC] Re: CMC-P-2006-07-002: WG "resources"

[Adrian J. Hooke]

As I noted in my 21 July message, I question whether the current CMC 
mechanism of "managing by resources" is working productively.

Since the CCSDS is patterned quite closely after the IETF, it is 
instructive to take a look at how the IETF standards process is managed. In 
particular, Request for Comments (RFC) 2418 "IETF Working Group Guidelines 
and Procedures" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt defines how Working 
Groups are formed and supervised. The relevant paragraphs are 2.1 and 2.2 
and in particular the only reference to "resources" appears to be as follows:
"Is there sufficient interest within the IETF in the working group's topic 
with enough people willing to expend the effort to produce the desired 
result (e.g., a protocol specification)? Working groups require 
considerable effort, including management of the working group process, 
editing of working group documents, and contributing to the document text. 
IETF experience suggests that these roles typically cannot all be handled 
by one person; a minimum of four or five active participants in the 
management positions are typically required in addition to a minimum of one 
or two dozen people that will attend the working group meetings and 
contribute on the mailing list."
The IETF seems more concerned with the relevance and need for a particular 
standard, and whether the necessary core leadership effort is 
available,  rather than on whether [0.2 of Pierre and 0.1 of Klaus and 0.3 
of Joe] can be allocated to support the work. In reality, that's the way 
that we work as well. At least one Agency takes the lead and the others 
support according to their interest in the subject. Maybe, in deciding 
whether to start or continue a Working Group, the CMC should ask:

1) Is there a need for this work?
2) Is there a credible charter with clear deliverables?
3) Has at least one Agency offered to lead the work through to completion?
4) Does any Agency *object* to the work going ahead?

If the answers to 1), 2) and 3) are "yes" and the answer to 4) is "no", 
then isn't that all that is needed? And if the deliverables aren't produced 
on schedule, isn't that a clear signal that the group should probably be 
terminated?

Best regards
Adrian Hooke,
CESG Chairman

>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2006-07-002: Modification of CCSDS Working 
>Group charter content and update procedures
>
>Results of CMC poll beginning 14 July 2006 and ending 11 August 2006:
>
>                 ADOPT: 4 (50%) (ASI, CSA, INPE, NASA)
>   ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 3 (37.5%) (CNES, ESA, JAXA)
>                REJECT: 0 (0%)
>  REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 1 (12.5%) (DLR)
>
>      CNES: It should be clarified how the resource requirements will be 
> passed to the CMC and how the resource allocation will be established.
>The operating plan was presented several times as the working document 
>between the technical authority in the CCSDS and the decision authority, 
>the main subject to work being the resource allocation. What is the 
>substitute tool ?
>Also, it is not clear how the reporting from the CESG will integrate 
>actual contributions.
>      DLR: as long as there is no other metrics to validate the 
> reliability of the workplan, I cannot accept the removal of the resource 
> requirements from the WG charter. I can accept the arguments, but how can 
> the CMC at the end rerally stear CCSDS, if there is no basis for setting 
> up the working groups?
>      ESA: I have sympathy for the arguments: it's reality. Nevertheless 
> an AD should specify globally the ressources he needs and report back how 
> much it got (the Agency origin of the ressource being irrelevant). 
> However the Agencies need to manage their ressource (level + allocation). 
> Therefore I suggest that the ressource allocation is managed at CMC level 
> as a response to the AD requirements. This needs to be discussed and 
> elaborated at the next CMC.
>      JAXA: How do we manage the Resource Requirements information?
>
>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/20060817/49fb218f/attachment.html