[CMC] Re: [CESG] Re: CMC-P-2006-07-002: WG "resources"
Jean-Luc.Gerner at esa.int
Jean-Luc.Gerner at esa.int
Fri Aug 18 03:13:28 EDT 2006
Adrian wrote:
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?
What if one Agency objects strongly to the work going ahead? Will we need the
unanimity like in the Security Council of the UN?
The rule so far for the creation of a WG is that at least two Agencies commit
to support the work. I propose to change 4) to:
4) Does at least one other Agency support the work?
Jean-Luc Gerner
TEC-ETN
Tel: +31 71 565 4473
"Adrian J. Hooke"
<adrian.j.hooke at jp
l.nasa.gov> To
Sent by: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group -
cesg-bounces at mailm ADs <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, CCSDS
an.ccsds.org Management Council
<cmc at mailman.ccsds.org>
cc
18/08/2006 01:03
Subject
[CESG] Re: CMC-P-2006-07-002: WG
"resources"
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
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
_______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg
More information about the CMC
mailing list