SPG Breakout Summary

1
SPG Breakout Summary

• Nov 16, 2006

2
Conference Topics

• Discussion with Martha Maiden
• NASA HQ has developed a process for evaluating
  Working Group recommendations.
• How can the SPG work most effectively with this
  process?
• Process Refinement
• Our standards process has had mixed success in
  attracting critical review of RFCs and
  recommending community-led standards.
• How can our process be improved to learn from the
  experience with the few RFCs that we have
  published?
• Google Discussion
• NASA has formed a working relationship with
  Google, Inc with a goal of providing better
  public search of NASA assets.
• How can NASA Earth Science Data systems enable
  this partnership to further the goals of
  increased interoperability of NASA Earth Science
  data systems and interuse of NASA Earth Science
  data?

3
Discussion with Martha Maiden

• SPG will send Recommended Standards to Martha
  Maiden with information package
• Strengths/Weaknesses
• Applicability/Llimitations
• Martha will endorse the Recommended standard and
  publicize by bringing information about it to the
  HQ Earth Science Steering Committee
• Martha will send email to community (including
  through the spg-announce) that the Recommended
  Standard is endorsed by HQ
• Issue How can HQ encourage the Earth Science
  community stakeholders to provide reviews of the
  proposed standards?
• Martha asked our group to come up with ideas.

4
Process Revision/ClarificationReview

• Currently we have a spec review and an
  operational review before adopting a standard
• Proposed standards already endorsed by an
  external standards organization will not need a
  spec review
• We will add a usability review to evaluate the
  fitness for a purpose.
• Evaluate extent of usage maturity level
  (maturity measured by Business Readiness rather
  than TRL)
• Reviews will not really be separate reviews, but
  rather single period for comment with questions
  designed to address all three aspects for
  assessment.
• We will try to design questions (rubrics) to
  determine factors that we can use to measure
  usability or suitability for operation rather
  than ask respondents for subjective responses.
• Evidence of Implementation Document is not simply
  the minimum two-implementations, but rather a
  more complete list of known implementations.

5
Process Revision/ClarificationRecommendation

• Present Process is for SPG to determine core or
  community
• New process SPG will recommend
• Leave it to community to determine if community
• Leave it to HQ or Programs to determine if it is
  core

6
The Standards Endorsement Process

• Initial Screening
• Initial review of the RFC
• Provide RFC submission support
• Form TWG set schedule

RFC
Proposed Standard
Recommended Standard
7
Google Earth Session

• Chris Kemp canceled trip last minute
• SPG will schedule a telecon with Chris in Dec/Jan
• SPG drafted a set of topics to discuss with Chris
  mainly to get discussion started on if the SPG
  process could be used for the Google Earth/NASA
  collaboration

8
Joint WG Session

• For each endorsed standard, SPG will send the
  Reuse Working Group the Evidence
  Implementation document.
• The Reuse WG can use this document to identify
  organizations who could potentially donate
  software for reuse.
• SPG will identify TRL level of each Recommended
  Standard when sending the recommendation to HQ
• Subsequent discussion in SPG suggested that
  Business Readiness might be more appropriate.

9
Madams Organ Metrics

• Number of users 14
• Number of organs (uncounted)
• Number of members of band 6
• Number of Red-headed men 1
• Number of Red-headed women 0
• Number of half-price meatloaf meals 2 (only 5!)
• Service Metrics
• Timeliness fine
• Transformation none observed
• Transport safe
• Quality Metrics
• Blues not applicable
• Ambience startling
• Music eclectic
• Impact Metric
• A good time was experienced by most.