[CMC] Review of changes to charters and projects
Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)
mike.kearney at nasa.gov
Thu Apr 23 00:58:07 EDT 2009
Dear CMC members,
SUMMARY: The assignment for the CMC is to review the attached reports of changes to charters and projects. And be prepared to discuss them at the CMC meeting. We will not walk through them one-by-one. We will only ask the CMC members which ones they want to discuss. So please come prepared if you want to discuss any of these changes. We expect to have at least one more change (SIS-IPO charter) added to the system before the meeting, and we will highlight that during the meeting.
DETAILS:
Last Fall in Berlin, when discussing the new online charter system, I asked whether the CMC wanted to see a poll for new products or for changes to product schedules. The answer from several agencies was no, and there was nobody saying yes. At that time I said that we would therefore only have a CMC poll for new charters, not new projects.
Then in December, I sent an email (below) which asked again whether the CMC wanted to approve new projects, and how did we want to see project schedule change reports. I got only one reply (below), from Jean-Marc Soula. Jean Marc advocated requiring a poll for new projects, but no other CMC members spoke up, so no action was taken. However at that time, we were well on our way through the six months between meetings.
So, this is what we did - we have three reports attached which will be discussed at the CMC meeting.
Project Change report - this report lists all changes to projects during the last six months, since we approved the initial set in Berlin. This only lists changes to the end date of the project (ECD-DA). Notice the last two columns -- the change in the date (in months) and the new total time to complete.
Project new report -- this report lists all new projects that have been added to the system during the last six months.
Charter report -- this lists all charters that were changed or deleted. It does not list any charters, since they would be edited only by a CMC poll. Note that the Secretariat will make minor changes to charters without a poll being required. Such as personnel changes, number changes (like 5.6), and editorial changes. It would be good to confirm that the CMC is okay with this level of change without a poll.
So, if this process is acceptable, we will do this before every CMC meeting. At the meetings, CMC members can raise any issues they have with any of the changes in charters or project schedules, and action can be taken at that point.
Notice, however, that during the six-month interval between meetings, working groups will have started working on new projects, or will have started assuming the new schedule for their projects. So any correction required by the CMC will be coming late, considering that the working groups have been moving out.
So, please come to Colorado Springs prepared to discuss any changes to the projects that you may have concerns about, and also any concerns you may have about this process.
-=- Mike
Mike Kearney
NASA MSFC EO-01
256-544-2029
-----Original Message-----
From: Soula Jean-Marc [mailto:jean-marc.soula at cnes.fr]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:03 AM
To: Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)
Cc: Nestor.Peccia at esa.int; CCSDS Management Council
Subject: RE : [CMC] CMC Process question concerning document project control
Dear Mike,
I am sorry for this late reply and to tell you the truth, I hesitated to react as I could not meet the date for the epoll you refer to. Now, assuming there was no other reply to your email, I believe you raised very good points that deserve comments and answers, so here is my feedback.
First of all, I fully agree with you that we have now a very good reporting tool with this new system. Thanks a lot to the developpers and contributors.
Concerning your questions, they lead to considerations about the management of CCSDS and the reporting required by the CMC to adequately manage the activities.
This assumes that the CMC is really a management body ; but on what does it manage and at which level ?
On strategy ?
Certainly ; We have a strategic plan that outlines the technical domain and justifies the areas in there. Very high level and
obviously too high to justify a twice a year management meeting of the CMC.
On objectives ?
I doubt : we have no workplan that would establish the agreed objectives of what we intend to do ; there is no top down
process for the definition of the working groups or projects we should have (now or in future) to fully cover the technical
domains.
On products ?
I doubt : we have charters of working groups that, once aggregated, form the operating plan, but this is the result of the
bottom up approach that is well defined in our procedures through the process of BOF and WG creation and validation.
The operating plan reflects what is in progress but only if associated with the planned projects of the WG.
The last reorganization of CCSDS was advertizing that the production should be in the form of projects ; WG chairs are
project leads.
To approve projects or charters for the CMC means "yes we need it" , "in this schedule" ... "assuming resources are
available".
Then the management council just monitors the changes in schedule and on re-charterings so as to adjust the allocated
resources or take other corrective actions, as feasible or as required.
On resources ?
We should, refering to the CCSDS charter that says the CMC provides the work forces. In fact, the resources are defined
and allocated in the same bottom up process that is related to the BOF-WG evolution. The delegates in the CMC rea free
to put in place in their agency a process to call for resources but there is no "call for contributions" as a collective CCSDS
process ... neither for the working level (who commits to contribute) nor for the chairmanship (who commits to lead), and
those resources are identified at the BOF level between the fathers of the WG.
So, as a summary, we have mainly bottom up processes that put the CMC more in a monitoring and not in a managing position.
Of course, this point of view may differ between agencies ; clear.
Now, coming to your questions :
(Question 1) Do we want to require a CMC poll to add a new project to a WG?
A working group is nothing if it has no project. Projects require resources, not WG's as such.
If we want to manage on products, the answer is obviously yes.
If we want to manage on resources, the answer is also yes.
Of course, to be pragmatic, the name "project" should be limited to "future standard" (Magenta or Blue).
Green or Orange books should be considered side documents to a standard and may not require a poll ; sometimes they are not identified in the initial charter and they will come out later.
(Question 2) How do we want to see reports on project schedule changes?
If we want to manage on products, the answer is yes as the target date is the basis of the agreement in the charter.
If we want to manage on resources, the answer is obviously yes as extended resources are required.
The issue is really when the reporting should be made, as you identified.
In advance to each CMC meeting may be the most efficient way so that it is discussed in CMC plenaries. This implies that the status is prepared in advance to the WG meetings (assuming we continue with contiguous WG and CESG-CMC meeting weeks).
(Question 3) Is the "Participation" field on the typical schedule adequately documenting the CMC commitment to provide resources for these projects?
It may, if associated with a clear "call for contributions" process .
I believe it is difficult to cover everything via email but this is a good subject for our meeting in April.
Best regards
Jean-Marc Soula
CNES - DCT/OP/C-STA
Advisor, GN Operations
18 Avenue Edouard Belin
31401 Toulouse Cedex 9 - France
Tel.: +33 (0)5 61 2 74647
Fax.: +33 (0)5 61 2 73135
Email: Jean-Marc.Soula at cnes.fr
-----Message d'origine-----
De : cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] De la part de Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)
Envoyé : vendredi 19 décembre 2008 16:45
À : CCSDS Management Council
Cc : Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
Objet : [CMC] CMC Process question concerning document project control
Dear CMC members: With the results of this poll (attached below):
· All charters, projects and schedules which are in the system are "approved", except for the ones with provisions below.
· Those with pending provisions will be approved once the WG chairs and/or Secretariat make the modifications requested in the provisions.
· Any new charters or changes to charters created will be required to be approved by CMC poll.
In the process of discussing these results and the future process within the Secretariat, we have uncovered some questions resulting from ambiguity in our process. I am sending these questions to the CMC to ask for your input.
(Question 1) Do we want to require a CMC poll to add a new project to a WG?
(Question 2) How do we want to see reports on project schedule changes?
(Question 3) Is the "Participation" field on the typical schedule adequately documenting the CMC commitment to provide resources for these projects?
Here is my explanation and background for these questions:
(Question 1) Do we want to require a CMC poll to add a new project to a WG?
As it stands, the system shows "pending" when a new charter is first entered by a WG chair, and its status is changed to "approved" after it passes a CMC poll. However, projects do not have these two status characteristics. If a WG chair enters a project, it is simply there for all to see. Alternatively, if we want CMC approval of new projects/documents added to a WG, then we would fix the system to add pending/approved status for projects, and the Secretariat would change it to "approved" only after a successful CMC poll. The CMC controls changes to WG charters (by poll), so if we do not need to control the addition/deletion of projects on charters, that effectively means that the list of WG projects is not considered part of a WG charter.
The issue, of course, is whether the CMC believes that it is necessary to control the documents being produced by a WG as a resource/funding/cost issue. During the Berlin meeting, one or two CMC members indicated that we did not need to approve the proliferation of documents in working groups by project approvals (although we do need to control the proliferation of working groups by charter approval). If we don't have other inputs from CMC members now, we will adopt that as the policy. Therefore, projects will not be part of the charter.
(Question 2) How do we want to see reports on project schedule changes?
In Berlin we said that we did not need to approve schedule changes to projects but we do want to be informed about them. The plan is for the Secretariat to produce a report periodically, simply listing document schedule changes that have been made by WG chairs. This may be distributed by email, or it may be posted on a webpage with an email to notify that a new version is available at that link. The question is whether we want these monthly or quarterly? Or perhaps a few weeks before or after a Technical WG meeting, when most of the changes take place. Are there opinions on the schedule? Does this meet the CMC's needs?
(Question 3) Is the "Participation" field on the typical schedule adequately documenting the CMC commitment to provide resources for these projects?
Notice that the latest version of the "all projects" list (http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/AllItems.aspx) has also exposed the list of agencies' "Participation" on the top level screen. This is intended to indicate not simply people that show up to the working group meeting, but rather the core agencies that are committing resources (with personnel time) to produce the product or document. Is this well understood by CMC members?
We are considering the addition of more control to that field by deleting the ability to enter free-form text (like "ESA lead for document" and "All WG members invited") and making it a pull-down box that allows only agency names. However, note that this level of control would be appropriate for something that the CMC exercises tight control over, but since we only want to "be informed" about the projects, but not control the details, that would imply the free-form text entry field under the control of the WG chair is adequate. We welcome inputs on whether this field is accomplishing its purpose, or whether the proposed change would help.
Those are the questions about the project control process. CMC inputs on these topics are welcomed.
I also want to thank the Secretariat Info Technology staff (Brian and Laura) for the excellent work they have done on the charter/project system, as seen by the "all projects" list. (http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/AllItems.aspx) This is really a great and valuable tool for management of CCSDS work, which the CMC has been needing for a long time. You can find the link for this on the left side of the CWE home page (http://cwe.ccsds.org) and it will be added to many other places very soon, for easy team access.
-=- Mike
Mike Kearney
CCSDS Chairman and General Secretary
+1-256-544-2029
Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov
Mail Code EO-01
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, Alabama 35803
USA
From: secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Craig Day
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:26 PM
To: CCSDS Management Council
Cc: Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
Subject: [Secretariat] [CMC] Results of CMC E-Poll Closing December 5, 2008
CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2008-11-005 Approval of WG Projects and Schedules
Results of CMC poll beginning 25 November 2008 and ending 5 December 2008
ADOPT: 4 (57.14%) (BNSC, CNSA, ESA, JAXA)
ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 3 (42.86%) (DLR, INPE, NASA)
REJECT: 0 (0%)
REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 0 (0%)
DLR: There are some projects without producing anything.
Should they be closed?
- There is no participation given for
- SOIS Subnetwork Device Discovery Service
- Lossless Hyperspectral Image Compression (green, blue)
- There is the Delay Tolerant Networking Working Group Green Book,
which is said to be open to all members of the WG; but who is doing
the work, what agency is taken the lead??
- There is a DLR participation indicated for the Pseudo-Noise (PN)
ranging systems. Please dlete DLR in the participants list.
INPE: This vote is an ADOPT. There is(are) NO condition(s) for
this vote. However, this opportunity is being taken to suggest the
opportune inclusion of an additonal column in the table of "CCSDS
Management Framework" of PROJECTS, under the name/title of "Last
Update" (i.e., date when the specific item of the table was last
updated), or like. It is also being suggested that the insertion of
this type of information for each of the items of the table may
become valid ONLY for new (item/line) entries or for required
(item/line) updates, which will become naturally necessary to the
table, after the eventual implementation of the suggested column may
be instrumented.
NASA: Adopt with these provisions:
For the documents under the SOIS Subnetwork Services WG, NASA agrees
to approve the production of Magenta books as listed in the project
list. However, there is a contradictory statement in the charter
text for 4.1 Subnetwork Services under "Goals" in the final note that
concludes with "The SOIS WG is clearly aiming at Blue Books." This
statement contradicts this approval to produce magenta books, and is
not agreed to by consensus within the WG. That sentence must be
removed from the charter text as the provision for NASA approval of
these projects. Note that the preceding text still states that the
color of these books will be reassessed later. This is OK,
considering that CCSDS processes will require that the results of any
such re-assessment must be approved by the CMC.
There are several projects with inadequate participation listed:
- SOIS Subnetwork Device Discovery Service
- SOIS Onboard Wireless WG Magenta book
- Lossless Hyperspectral Image Compression (green and blue)
- Delay Tolerant Networking Working Group Green Book
Before approval these projects must list the participating agencies
that are committing to provide the resources to accomplish the project.
Results are based on responses from 7 out of 11 members (63.64%).
No response was received from the following Agencies:
ASI
CNES
CSA
FSA
Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted Provisionally
Resulting CMC Resolution: TBD
Inferred Secretariat Action: Pending Disposition of Provisions
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Project New Report Spring 2009.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 38965 bytes
Desc: Project New Report Spring 2009.pdf
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20090422/bbebe1af/ProjectNewReportSpring2009-0001.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Charter Report Spring 2009.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 60615 bytes
Desc: Charter Report Spring 2009.pdf
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20090422/bbebe1af/CharterReportSpring2009-0001.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Project Change Report Spring 2009.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 42753 bytes
Desc: Project Change Report Spring 2009.pdf
Url : http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20090422/bbebe1af/ProjectChangeReportSpring2009-0001.pdf
More information about the CMC
mailing list