[CMC] Re: Proposed new development time limits

[Allan, PM (Peter)]

I am sure that we all want to have the standards development process
move along as quickly as it can, while recognising that things do take
time. The example that Gilles quotes is a real one, but I believe it
would be unacceptable for all standards to take that long. I suggest
that when a new working group is created, then there should be a
realistic assessment of how long the work is expected to take (as is
already done), but then there should be serious consideration given as
to whether that time is acceptable, or whether important customers for
the standard are going to be grumbling, even if we deliver to our
planned schedule.
 
The sooner we foresee trouble, the sooner we can do something about it,
and I do not rule out the option of realising that we need to do
something radically different from what was originally planned.
 
Cheers
 
Peter Allan
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Dr. Peter M. Allan 
Head, Space Data Division 
Space Science and Technology Department 
CCLRC/Rutherford Appleton Laboratory 
Chilton 
Didcot Tel: +44 (1235) 445723 
Oxon OX11 0QX fax: +44 (1235) 446667 
England e-mail: p.m.allan at rl.ac.uk 

 

________________________________

From: cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org
[mailto:cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Adrian J. Hooke
Sent: 28 July 2006 17:33
To: CCSDS Management Council; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - ADs
Cc: CCSDS Secretariat
Subject: [CMC] 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/20060818/a12077ca/attachment.html