<font size=2 face="sans-serif">All,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> here
is a couple of comments.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I would remove "</font><font size=3 color=red>and
contributors</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif">" from the proposed
change to </font><font size=3>2.3.2.4.3 Area Director Responsibilities
- item c) </font>
<br><font size=3>The request of contributions is made in the BOF (otherwise
there would be no recommendation to go for WG) and nthing prevent an Agency
from adding resources. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Strange enough the list of "</font><font size=3>Area
Director Responsibilities</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif">" seems
to miss what is stated under </font><font size=3>2.3.3.4</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
first line.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I suggest completing "</font><font size=3>2.3.2.4.3
Area Director Responsibilities - item c)</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif">"
to state somehow that - after candidates are proposed - the AD nominates
the Chair(s) asking CESG approval.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The proposed change to section 2.3.4
does not reflect that we agreed that a BOF is expected to ask agency representatives
for initial chair candidates to be reported to the AD within the concept
paper (or within the resource profile?) together with draft charter,
draft project(s), etc.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Moreover it looks as the AD can only
"</font><font size=3>recommend more BOF work on the charter and resource
profile</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif">" and not on other items
of the list following a few lines below.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">A possible rewording could something
like this (better wording welcome :o):</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">At such time as a BOF feels
that it has enough agreement to propose formation of a WG, it must schedule
a meeting with an AD to present its case providing a BOF Package including:</font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif"> - a draft charter including
candidate chairs (if identified by the BOF), </font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">- at least one project definition
(see 5.5.1.1.1), </font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">- a resource profile for
each project identifying expected efforts and contributing agencies, and
</font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">- a CCSDS concept paper (see
6.1.3) outlining its technical scope. </font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">The AD makes the initial
determination as to whether to advocate the work further, to recommend
more BOF work on the BOF Package, or to reject the proposal. If the AD
recommends acceptance of the proposal, the AD must then ask the CMC for
nominees for new WG Chair or Deputy and for adequate resources to support
the work. Once a proposed WG chair (and possibly deputy Chair) have
been identified the AD must forward the BOF Package to the CESG for a decision.
If the AD rejects the proposal, the BOF can appeal to the CESG chairman
for a wider hearing, or it can simply dissolve. BOFs initiated from inside
the CCSDS organization have a lifetime of no more than one year.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I invented the term BOF Package to make
clear what I mean, but better wording is surely possible and welcome.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">BTW for this clause</font>
<br><font size=4>6.1.3.3.4 If a BOF has to modify and resubmit its charter
to meet any changes as a result of CESG review, the concept paper shall
be updated as necessary and resubmitted as well. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I think that "its charter"
is wrong as it is the charter of the proposed WG and not the BOF charter.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I wish you all a nice week end.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Gippo</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Shames, Peter
M (312B)" <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"CCSDS Engineering
Steering Group - CESG Exec" <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org>, </font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">25/09/2015 01:45</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[CESG] Revised
updates to CCSDS Org & Proc doc, A02.1-Y-4c1</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Sent by:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</font>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Dear CESG colleagues,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">During today’s CESG telecon we discussed
one set of proposed changes to the CCSDS Organization and Procedures Yellow
Book (</font><font size=2>CCSDS A02.1-Y-4</font><font size=2 face="Calibri">)
addressing soliciting WG chair nominations from agencies. We did
not address at all the conflict of scheduling or interest issues that have
also been raised in recent discussions.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Please see the following proposed changes
to the document. This set covers only the specific topic we discussed
today. Proposed changes from the existing text are indicated in
</font><font size=2 color=red face="Calibri"><b>red</b></font><font size=2 face="Calibri">.
The proposed change to deal with other topics are in </font><font size=2 color=#008000 face="Calibri"><b>green</b></font><font size=2 face="Calibri">.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Best regards, Peter</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">==========================================================================</font>
<p><font size=3>2.3.1.2 CMC Responsibilities (pg 2-5)</font>
<br><font size=3>g) providing the overall administration of the organization,
including </font><font size=3 color=#008000>nominating and appointing CCSDS
leadership (CESG & AD), and </font><font size=3>the very important
function of the Secretariat; </font>
<p>
<p><font size=3> 2.3.2.3 CESG Responsibilities (pg 2-11)</font>
<br><font size=3>n) approving WG Chairs and Deputy Chairs;</font>
<p><font size=3 color=red>NOTE – For fairness and to help achieve agency
balance the AD proposing the Chair is to ask the CMC and the member agencies
for nominees for new WG Chair or Deputy prior to requesting the CESG ballot
for the WG.</font>
<p><font size=3>NOTE – BOF and SIG chairs are not subject to CESG approval.
</font>
<p>
<p><font size=3>2.3.2.4.3 Area Director Responsibilities</font>
<p><font size=3>c) making recommendations to the CESG concerning
approval for the chartering and formation of WGs; </font><font size=3 color=red>requesting
nominations of qualified WG chair candidates and contributors from the
CMC prior to polling the CESG for WG approval; replacing WG chairs
who are no longer able to serve;</font>
<p>
<p><font size=3>2.3.3.4 Working Group Chairs (pg 2-16)</font>
<p><font size=3>Working Group chairs are nominated by an Area Director
and approved by the CESG. Candidates for selection as WG chairs must be
recognized as a leading technical expert in the field covered by that WG.
Candidates may come from any organization (including industry) and do not
have to be employees of space agencies. </font><font size=3 color=red>For
fairness and to help achieve agency balance the AD is required to ask the
CMC for nominees for new WG Chair or Deputy prior to requesting the CESG
ballot for the WG. If a Working Group chair can no longer serve
the AD must follow the same process in identifying a replacement. </font><font size=3 color=#008000>As
a general principle, to avoid conflicts of scheduling or interest, a single
person may only be the Chair or Deputy of one WG at a time.</font>
<p>
<p><font size=3>2.3.4 BIRDS-OF-A-FEATHER GROUPS (pg 2-18, last paragraph)</font>
<p><font size=3>…</font>
<p><font size=3>At such time as a BOF feels that it has enough agreement
to propose formation of a WG, it must schedule a meeting with an AD to
present its case. The AD makes the initial determination as to whether
to advocate the work further, to recommend more BOF work on the charter
and resource profile, or to reject the proposal. If the AD recommends acceptance
of the proposal, the AD must then </font><font size=3 color=red>ask the
CMC for nominees for new WG Chair or Deputy and for adequate resources
to support the work. Once a proposed WG chair (and possibly deputy
Chair) have been identified the AD must forward</font><font size=3> the
draft charter, project definition, and resource profile, accompanied by
a CCSDS concept paper (see 6.1.3) outlining its technical scope, </font><font size=3 color=red><strike>is
forwarded</strike></font><font size=3> to the CESG for a decision. If the
AD rejects the proposal, the BOF can appeal to the CESG chairman for a
wider hearing, or it can simply dissolve. BOFs initiated from inside the
CCSDS organization have a lifetime of no more than one year.</font>
<p>
<p><font size=3> </font><tt><font size=2>_______________________________________________<br>
CESG mailing list<br>
CESG@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
</font></tt><a href=http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg><tt><font size=2>http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
</font></tt>
<p><PRE>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.
</PRE>