[CFIC] Re: CFIC: Governance and Management

Pat Waukau waukau at ucar.edu
Tue Jan 15 11:48:34 MST 2008

I've posted a revised version of the document taking into account the
various comments.  If more clarification is needed, provide me with 
specific content.


On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:17:50AM -0700, Lance Jones wrote:
> Aaron Andersen wrote:
> > Not quite sure what you mean here. Putting staff into a management 
> > group that doesn't report to a supervisor and do the work is usually 
> > a recipe for chaos. Is that what is meant here? As proposed the 
> > management group is synonymous with an engineering group i.e. NETS, 
> > CSAC, F&A IT.
> Rereading what I wrote... I can see where your confusion comes from.
> Let me see if I can clarify...
> What I want to do is put adequate structure in place to ensure
> accountability and responsiveness to users needs (i.e. primarily the
> sysadmins), but not so much as to create a ponderous bureaucracy.
> Working from the first draft, the relationship between the mgmt and
> advisory groups is too loose. Jim's subsequent comments help clarify the
> relationship, but we can go further:
> 1) More clearly define the extent to which the advisory committee has
> meaningful input into the activities of the mgmt group. The NCAB model
> works well for NCAB, but it's not a good fit in this case. I'd like to
> see less "laissez-faire" wording.  Some examples of precisely the sort
> of thing that should be discussed and decided on by this advisory
> committee are the questions of rack mount servers vs. tower, and buy all
> new racks vs waiving in existing racks.
> 2) Explicitly list the advisory committee along with the existing
> committees under "Chairs of technical committees" on page 2.
> 3) From the draft: "it is recommended that there be a technical and
> administrative representative from each entity whose computers are
> housed in these facilities".
> Is this an advisory committee or a family reunion? This is too many
> people for an advisory committee, especially one that should be
> primarily technical in nature.  Cut out a bunch of the administrative
> reps- money discussions are best handled at the governance level.  We
> need only one or two admin reps on the advisory committee- just enough
> to keep Mgmt from making really boneheaded recommendations to Gov.
> 4) Reps from "finance" and "physical plant services"... I can see PPS,
> but isn't finance already well represented by FAIT?
> 5) "Initially there may be a need for frequent meetings, however, longer
> term it is anticipated that bi-annual or annual meetings would be
> sufficient"
> That should be Gov's or possibly Mgmt's call.  I'd like to see this
> sentence dropped, or at least rewritten to acknowledge that.
> 6) Who represents the consensus opinion of the advisory group to the
> governance group- the chair or the colo manager? If the answer seems
> obvious, then lets state it.
> This may all seem a little too specific, but... it's pretty late in the
> process and specificity is exactly what we should be aiming for. It's
> going to be harder to reach consensus without it.
> lj
> _______________________________________________
> CFIC mailing list
> CFIC at mailman.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfic

Pat Waukau   waukau at ucar.edu
Head, Systems Group
Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Division
P. O. Box 3000 
Boulder, CO  80307
(303) 497-8906 (Office)
(303) 497-8181 (FAX)

More information about the CFIC mailing list