search

openETCS / model-evaluation

part of WP7: collects the various activities regarding selecting a tool and formal specification for modeling
13 stars 20 forks source link

Should partners spending more e ffort (i.e. person months) in the tool chain/modelling have more weight on their votes? #21

Closed stanpinteTheSignallingCompany closed 10 years ago

stanpinteTheSignallingCompany commented 11 years ago

This question was raised in munich workshop.

https://github.com/openETCS/model-evaluation/blob/master/Munich_20130416_minutes/Minute%2020130416%20WP7%20evaluation%20matrix.pdf

janWelte commented 11 years ago

Dear Stan, I don't think effort should be a criteria to assign voting weights. I see your point, but since this project tries to develop a tool chain with a scope far beyond the work of the project, the decisions shall be based (as far as possible) on reasonable evaluations based on universally agreed on criteria. Best regards, Jan

stanpinteTheSignallingCompany commented 11 years ago

Dear Jan,

Thanks for your input. I however disagree with your point. Indeed, all the non-academic partners make an investment in the project, as they are not 100% funded. That investment needs to be taken into account. More specifically, WP3 members who shall do the modelling (the actual work) are investing in that part. It seems fair to me that the ones who are investing and actually doing the work have a larger part in the decision of which tool they shall use that other partners.

What do you think?

Very kind regards

Stan

JonasHelming commented 11 years ago

I actually also think, that a pure majority voting does not necessarily bring the best decision for the project. Like in an commercial development project, the later users of the toolchain should have significant influence. Also a pure majority voting does not equally cover all aspects. As an example, we have many partners (probably more than 50%) involved into V&V. So V&V criteria will probably automatically be more weighted in the voting then lets say the feasibility of creating a complete model, which needs to be done by a smaller number of partners. And before you defend V&V, this was just an example and you could turn it around just like that.

I think this is a difficult issue, but also a crucial one.

jastram commented 11 years ago

Stan,

I think the current developments show that voting won't be practical here. But I agree that we need a clear idea on how the next 6 month will look like, and how we decide with which tool chain we will proceed in 2014. This will be covered in D7.1, but probably not by describing a voting process.

I would like to resolve this issue with D7.1.

BerndHekele commented 11 years ago

Dear All, I want to pick this discussion in order to prepare a conclusion in the PCC - if necessary. It rested for too long - sorry for this confusion.

The PCA indicates a vote procedure for issues to be decided in the PCC. In this procedure the weight of the partners is taken as a factor. All partners have the right to vote irregardless of the topic.

Our "Grievance Handling Process" documented in the QA-Plan and being based on the Eclipse Procedures shows the way to come to a decision in the PCC.

This process also indicates that escalation has to be an exceptional situation. We do not want to rule the project with escalations. We want to get benefit from a positive attitude to the project and to the working results.

For a day-to-day work, a solution has to be sought on a level as close as possible to the people involved. (This is also part of the grievance handling process).

Let's take the example of a toolchain decision (like we have done in Paris) . Michael, being responsible for the toolchain, had the authority to propose a procedure in the meeting. He opted for a simple vote with equal rights and no special weight of participants due to the simplicity of this approach.

(This option might be something we want to add to the Greivance HGandling Process if it is not yet clear enough described).

In my opinion, the result was clear after the meeting.

If you were not agreeing to the decision, the way is to use the grievance handling process, i.e.,

(Personal) participation in the weekly PMB is open for all partners - take this approach if you feel not heard.

Please, feel free to use this track for continuing the discussion.

MariellePetitDoche commented 10 years ago

Evaluation and decision done.

stanpinteTheSignallingCompany commented 10 years ago

Dear Marielle,

COuld you please outline which decision has been taken, and where it has been documented?

Very kind regards,

Stan

BerndHekele commented 10 years ago

Dear Stan, this issue is not technically linked to the model evaluation activity. Task 7.1 is about to be closed. Therefore, this issue does not make sense in this place any more. If you stil feel there is an issue, you can check whether it is adressed by the openETCS Chart: https://github.com/openETCS/Charta/tree/master/Proposal. Please, activly participate in adressing your vision in the charta.

stanpinteTheSignallingCompany commented 10 years ago

We participate in the charta. thank you.