<font size=2 face="sans-serif">Nestor,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> I
like the idea of the semaphore .</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">For the area project it may be I was
not clera but I did not change my mind: trhe best is that each wg is reporting
about that. If the duplication is required, then we should be careful with
copy and paste.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Have 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">Nestor Peccia/esoc/ESA</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Cc:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"CCSDS Engineering
Steering Group - CESG Exec(cesg" <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org>, "CESG"
<cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">08/07/2016 16:39</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [CESG] New
draft of "CESG report to CMC"template</font>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Gippo</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">My comments, and a new update attached.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b><u>@ADs/DADs</u></b>: Please comment
this draft</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ciao</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">nestor</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">=============================</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">SLIDE #5: IS THE BOX AT THE BOTTOM NEEDED
? </font><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b> I want to gather
more AD's view to reach a conclusion. My personal view is that we can use
a semaphore at the top of the page and delete the box.</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">SLIDE #5: PLANNING BOX </font><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b>OK
except for</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Activity </font><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b>background
color identifies the book </b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">SLIDE #5: TYPO </font><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b>OK</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">SLIDE #5: Recommendation </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I gues that Recommendation 2 Pages
per WG means that the contents suggested in this slide can be spread
in up to two slides and then the WG can add more ancillary slides for "big"
explanations.</font><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b> WG can
produce 100 charts, but for the CESG report 2 charts per WG (it could be
exceptions, but 2 is the rule). We should avoid too verbose reports.</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">SLIDE #6: Area Projects </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">This slide will be of course duplicating
data included by each WG. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I may understand the suggestion for
such a duplication o get all the eggs together, but there is a risk for
errors during copy and paste </font><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b>My
initial idea was to put one table for all WGs as Area summary (as SIS did
and CMC recommended). Your initial comment was that this was too much trouble
and error prone. My second suggestion was individual tables per WG and
an easy compilation as Area Summary. and now you are commenting in the
other direction.(due to cut / paste errors). Too picky.</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">SLIDE #7: Title </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I would change from: Xxx Area:
Resources Discussion for Approved Projects </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">To: Xxx Area: Resources ISSUES
</font><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b> OK</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rationale: 1) you want to highlight
issues not discussion. 2) The project is clearly approved since if there
were resource issues the project would have not been approved.</font><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b>
Wrong. Read clarification. Once the issue with missing proto 2 is solved
this chart will disappear.</b></font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">SLIDE #8: Tables...... </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">As for the planning box, I think there
should be a table like this for each WG (i.e. add it to slide 5) such that
the summary table is created with copy and paste as for slide 6. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The same comments as for slide 6 apply.
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The same comments for the first column
as for the planning table apply</font><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b>.
I do not agree. The number of new WIs for the next 6 months is reduced
and it is better that the AD produces him/herself this table</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">SLIDE #9: Again a duplication
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">This slide will be of course duplicating
data included by each WG. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I may understand the suggestion for
such a duplication o get all the eggs together, but there is a risk for
errors during copy and paste</font><font size=2 color=red face="sans-serif"><b>
Not agreed. It is a nice summary for the CMC</b></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">[attachment "d03-CESG-Report-to-CMC-Fall
2016 Template.pptx" deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] </font>
<br>
<br><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>