Re: [802SEC] RE: Draft SOW for P&P revision support from SA
I seriously doubt your/our ability to maintain any kind of discipline with
regard to this two-stage process (first, generating the "superset", then
streamlining the superset); it just won't work out that way in practice,
because everyone will want to hack the superset the first time around. So I
believe that the two stage process will closely follow the military adage
that no plan survives contact with the enemy.
Given the above, I would suggest we accept the inevitable & make it a one
stage process (which may involve more than one ballot of course), and go
for as much of the 2nd stage streamlining as possible in the first balloted
draft. That way, the purpose of the ballot(s) would be to comment on what
we want the final shape of the document to be, rather than what I believe
will be a rather artificial first ballot even if we can be persuaded to
stay "on topic".
I would agree with Howard that 2 cycles is a bit on the aggressive side,
and would suggest 3 is about right.
At 04:17 19/02/2004, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>I received little comment on this SOW. The only comments I received were
>from Howard Frazier. (Thank you Howard for the very useful
>comments). Howard's main point was that rather than completing the
>process in 2 plenary cycles, I should slow the process down a bit to allow
>more time for comment by the EC. I agree with Howard point, and started
>recrafting the SOW to take 3 plenary cycles to complete based on Howard
>guidance. The new process would first ballot a draft which aligns the
>LMSC P&P with the model P&P, both in format and content. That is it would
>add anything from the model P&P that ours is currently missing and
>reformat our document while maintaining it's content. Later, a second
>ballot would be held on additional changes to streamline our P&P, etc. The
>one issue I have with this is that we really should wait for the first
>ballot to compete before drafting the "streamlined" the P&P. By this I
>mean removing any content that is already covered in or conflicts!
> with other documents with precedence over our own. If we wait for the
> first ballot to complete before editing, it means we can't initiate the
> second ballot until the following plenary. Thus it will take 4 plenary
> cycle to compete the project. This seems a bit much to me, but to do
> otherwise would require editing the second draft while the first one is
> still being balloted. I'm not sure this is a good idea, so I want to
> poll the EC.
>How long should the P&P update process take? 2 cycles, 3 cycles or 4 cycles?
>Please let me know your opinions.
>I plan to provide the draft document I already circulated to the EC
>informally to SA (with clear indication that it is not an 802 approved
>document and is purely for comment) so that I can get their inputs as
>well. I will also inform them of Howard suggestions. I will do this all
>tomorrow night unless I hear anyone on the EC object prior to that time.
>Matthew Sherman, PhD
>Senior Member Technical Staff
>BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
>Office: +1 973.633.6344
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:04 PM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Draft SOW for P&P revision support from SA
> > All,
> > Per Paul's request I have been working on a Statement of Work for SA
> support in updating the LMSC Policy and Procedures. The primary goal is
> get our P&P reformatted along the lines of the model P&P, make sure it
> doesn't have any holes or fatal conflicts with documents having
> precedence over our own, and arrange for possible ongoing support to
> clear the back log of the many P&P changes people want to try.
> > The attached document is a draft, and I don't anticipate final approval
> of anything prior to the March meeting. However, I would like to pass
> something to the SA for comment well prior to the March meeting, so that
> hopefully a full consensus can be reached between us and SA at the March
> meeting. If you have any critical comments, please get them to me within
> the next week so I can incorporate you comments into this document before
> I "formally" informally pass it to the SA to comment on. I suppose
> posting the document on this reflector makes them aware of it anyway.
> > Looking forward to your comments.
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > Mat
> > << File: Draft 4.0 Statement of Work for SA PP Support.doc >>
> > Matthew Sherman, PhD
> > Senior Member Technical Staff
> > BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
> > Office: +1 973.633.6344
> > email: email@example.com