[CESG] REMINDER: Draft Notes of CESG meeting on 15th May 2017; Proposed changes to Technical Quality and consistency of CCSDS Books

Wed May 24 19:14:46 UTC 2017

I tend to agree with Peter in that the quality of the documents starts with the WG, and that it is the responsibility of the AD to check the documents before going to CESG consideration for things like Agency review.  There was discussion, which I do not believe is captured in the notes about the chronological order of the statements not being correct.

Aside from the question of the notes, thinking about this topics more, I can't help but wonder if we in fact are missing an opportunity for improving CCSDS in general. Namely, it may be beneficial to consider discussion at the level of CESG with regard to our areas as to the issues that the Area Directors are encountering when books are being brought forward for things like agency reviews.  This could help us in assessing whether or not the Boot Camp is being effective and identify general common issues we have with book production. To help illustrate this, I can volunteer that the most recent set of documents that have come forward to me for approval for consideration/initiation of CESG poll have had, collectively as the most consistent issue, the Sana Registry considerations section. In all of these cases, I did not let the document go forward to CESG poll without discussion of my findings and negotiation with the working group in terms of improving this particular section.   I think that if the area Directors were to bring forward the classification of the kind of problems they are finding in their books in a summary form, that this will help us in general to think about how we improve the quality of CCSDS documents. In the example I cited above, this indicates to me that we may have more work to do in making sure everybody understands the RMP properly.

My broader concern here is that reshaping/streamlining procedures is really only part of the solution. It strikes me that we really do not have a forum for bringing forward in a general summarized way the concerns that each area is discovering in terms of quality production.  Please note that I'm not trying to cast aspersions or blame in any direction but rather suggesting a periodic programmatic (every CESG meeting?) look at technical quality issues encountered by each area and discussing them frankly so that we collectively (CCSDS CEGS) can report to CMC on production quality trends and issues. I don’t think this has to be onerous -- rather a quick summary of the type I highlighted in the example above.

Best regards,
-Erik

From: CESG [mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Shames, Peter M (312B)
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 11:24 AM
To: Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec(cesg at mailman.ccsds.org) <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [CESG] REMINDER: Draft Notes of CESG meeting on 15th May 2017; Proposed changes to Technical Quality and consistency of CCSDS Books

Nestor,

This point about the quality of the documents starting with the WG and the ADs was made several times during the CESG meeting.  This did not make it into your minutes, but it was spoken and discussed more than once.  The fact that you chose to emphasize the role of the CESG in identifying issues after the fact, instead of putting the emphasis where it belongs, at the source, is itself a problem.

The point was made, more than once, that the quality of CCSDS documents MUST start with the Book Captain, the WG chair, and the AD for that area.  Failing to deal with this at the source is why the rest of us, or those of us who do engage in the process, have all this "clean-up" work to do.

The guidance in the CCSDS Organization and Process manual, CCSDS A02.1-Y-4, seems quite clear on this point of where responsibility rests.  It is presented "top down" in the Org & Proc doc, but the work clearly starts "bottom up" in the Working Groups.

In the CCSDS Org & Proc in Sec 2.3.2.3, the CESG, as a whole, is given the responsibility, as stated:

  *   a)  maintaining and upholding the overall technical quality and consistency of the evolving set of CCSDS Recommended Standards and Practices;  

So the CESG is ultimately the "technical quality gatekeeper".  But each Area Director also has Responsibilities, sec 2.3.2.4.3:

  *   d)  ensuring that CCSDS documents are properly categorized and that they embody the content and quality expected of documents of their type;  

And fundamentally, the WG chair has the initial responsibility, Sec 2.3.3.4:

  *   e)  ensuring that documents developed by their WG are properly categorized and that they embody the content and quality expected of documents of their type;  

If we cannot all agree on this point then I think there is no recourse but to bring this disagreement to the CMC.

Regards, Peter

From: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 7:16 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: REMINDER: Draft Notes of CESG meeting on 15th May 2017; Proposed changes to Technical Quality and consistency of CCSDS Books

Peter

I am not prepared to accept some of your suggested additions
i.e.
During discussion it was made clear that the process of ensuring CCSDS document quality must start with the originating WG and AD, prior to the document ever being sent forward to the CESG.
... said, starting with the originating WG and Area, at .....
The primary process changes are to require that the WG and AD’s do a more thorough check before sending books forward, that the members of the CESG provide feedback at the earliest opportunity, and that the CESG should issue PIDs, ad well as RIDs, during agency reviews.

Why?  because we agreed on the text below, on which Brigitte made a photo with her mobile to immortalise the agreement.

[cid:image001.png at 01D2D484.83E88130]

ciao
nestor

This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.

The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its

content is not permitted.

If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.

Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20170524/f1721ca0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 253349 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20170524/f1721ca0/attachment.png>