[Internal-cg] Publication of proposal finalization process

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Fri Dec 19 23:27:07 UTC 2014


Hi Manal,

From my perspective it is up to the operational communities to decide whether and how to test their proposals. The only requirement we have put forth is in Section IV of the RFP:

"Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of any new technical or
operational methods proposed in this document and how they compare to established
arrangements.”

The timeline simply shows when testing is likely to take place, if the communities decide to undertake it (step 4). If they do undertake it, I think it is incumbent upon us to verify that test results show the system to be working (step 7). That is, we don’t want the unified proposal to reflect an operational arrangement that we know has glitches. But if tests were not conducted for a particular arrangement, we will not have anything to confirm.

I think this flexibility is important because some communities may not propose any operational changes at all, in which case there really will be nothing to “test.”

Alissa

On Dec 18, 2014, at 1:19 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Thanks Joseph and Milton for your responses and Alissa for also
> addressing my last 2 comments .. I agree to all your edits (I guess it
> was a wrong email attachment but I checked Dropbox).. I also agree to
> publishing the updated timeline together with the proposal finalization
> process .. I think ultimately we should also make sure the FAQ links to
> the updated version .. 
> 
> Regarding the testing, I have to admit that I'm a bit unclear now on
> what we're trying to convey/request .. A yes/no/optional answers to the
> below may help ..
> 
> - Are we requesting tests/stress tests to be carried out for all
> submitted proposals?
> - Are we requesting documentation of such tests, how they were carried
> out and their results?
> - Are we requesting that those tests be put in action and continue to be
> effective till July and beyond?
> - Will we be re-checking on the results of those tests again in July?
> 
> I think what confuses me is that we've agreed to delete this from the
> PFP:
> "Consideration of how the proposal documented the stress tests or
> scenario analysis that they were subjected to and whether those results
> when considered in combination create any possible concerns", because,
> and I stand to be corrected, that this was not explicitly requested from
> the operational communities, which, to me, seems to be a bit conflicting
> with what we're asking for in step 4 of the timeline ..
> 
> Hope I was able to clarify my point and happy to be convinced that there
> is no issue here and that both documents are in synch :) ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:12 AM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: ICG
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Publication of proposal finalization process
> 
> Thanks, Manal. Indeed ever since the inaccuracy in step 7 was pointed
> out I have been thinking that we needed to revise the timeline. I think
> it would make sense to update the timeline language and publish it
> together with the proposal finalization process.
> 
> I've attached an edited timeline
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/n5pzeikw5fju9k8/TimelineDiscussion-v7-alc.doc
> x?dl=0> that addresses your points 2 and 3 below and makes some
> editorial fixes. I'm not sure that I agree about your point 1 - or
> perhaps I just don't know how to address it. I think the March-July time
> frame is when communities should be testing their arrangements, if they
> feel specific testing is warranted. Do you have a suggested edit for
> Step 4?
> 
> Do others have comments on this? Could we try to wrap up the timeline
> document at the same time as the proposal finalization process (i.e.,
> Monday) since the edits are minimal and at least the one I've proposed
> for step 7 takes language directly from the proposal finalization
> process?
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 



More information about the Internal-cg mailing list