[CMC E-Poll Alert] Re: CMC Poll - Authorization to discontinue formal CESG review

[Adrian J. Hooke]

>CMC-P-2006-07-001: Authorization to discontinue formal CESG review for 
>Standards and non-Standards Track documents

>CNES 
><http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/cmc/polls/_layouts/1033/UserDisp.aspx?ID=107>Soula 
>Jean-Marc REJECT WITH COMMENTS
>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 !

Jean-Marc: the problem with the previous procedures is that we had *serial* 
polls (first the CESG, then the CMC). That created a long delay and that's 
why we started conducting concurrent CMC/CESG polls -- to shorten the 
voting time.

>- 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 ?

For whatever reason, many Area Directors apparently find themselves unable 
to keep up with all of the work and therefore they don't have time to study 
every issue well enough to vote on everything. We discussed this problem at 
length in Rome and it was generally agreed that we need to change the 
review and voting model. Instead of everyone being required to read 
everything and vote on everything, it will now be the job of the Area 
Director who wishes to move something to the CMC to first consult with the 
other Area Directors who are most likely to be affected. In this way, a 
CESG review is in fact conducted prior to CMC polling, but it is done 
behind the scenes. In those cases where an Area Director fails to consult 
with someone who should have been consulted, there is an opportunity to 
catch this because the CESG members also have the opportunity to 
participate in the CMC polls and to cast a negative vote.

>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.

This will still occur, except that the responsibility to verify correct 
"form and the contents" is now pushed back to the Area Director who owns 
the document. He alone is accountable if poor quality work reaches the CMC.

>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.

Correct. But if this happens, it will be very clear WHY it happened - a 
specific Area Director didn't do his job. If that Area Director 
consistently fails to do his job, the CMC can take appropriate action.

>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 ?

No, technical quality and content is still the job of the Area Director.

>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.

As noted, the CESG review still occurs - but it occurs more selectively by 
requiring each Area Director to pre-coordinate with others who are likely 
to be affected.

It's my suggestion that we adopt the new procedure for a trial period 
(perhaps 1-year?) to see if it improves the efficiency and effectiveness of 
our operations.

Best regards
Adrian

Adrian J. Hooke
Chairman, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group (CESG)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc-exec/attachments/20060721/e3aa31d6/attachment.htm