<font size=2 face="Arial">Peter,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">we keep on discussing the same thing over
and over. OK, the word "substantive" is present in the YB, but
not to mean "substantive technical issues". You should read the
full paragraph and not only bullet c), below for everyone's convenience:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">6.2.5.2 Once review of a document
has been authorized, that document may be reviewed more than once without
additional polling of the CMC:</font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">a) if technical issues are identified
in the course of a review, those issues must be resolved and the review
must be repeated before approval can be sought for a change of document
status;</font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">b) increasing draft issue numbers
shall be assigned to successive versions of the draft document released
in successive iterations of the review (see annex E);</font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">c) if substantive changes are
made to a document that has completed review without technical comment,
the Secretariat shall conduct a final review in which Agencies can approve
or reject the document but may not suggest additional changes;</font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">d) the Secretariat shall follow
the same procedures for posting review materials and review announcement
for each iteration of a review.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Paragraph a) deals with technical issues.
Here no notion of substantive is present. An unreasonable person who reads
this paragraph may understand that 1 technical issue is enough to call
for another AR. Additionally, the notion of technical issue is not clear:
is a technical issue present when there is a RID that has been marked as
"Technical Fact"? And marked by who (the originator or the review
coordinator)?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Paragraph c), that you quoted, refers to
a document that has "completed the review without technical comments".
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Therefore the concept of substantive technical
issue does not exist today in the YB. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Regards,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">__Mario</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">Mario Merri <Mario.Merri@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@mailman.ccsds.org></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">15/05/2017 16:50</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Use of "Substantive
changes"</font>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Hi Mario,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">You just mentioned that you thought the
word "substantive" did not appear in the CCSDS YB. But
it does, in sec 6.2.5.2 (emphasis <b><i>added</i></b>):</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"><b>6.2.5 FORMAL AGENCY REVIEW </b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">6.2.5.2 Once review of a document has been
authorized, that document may be reviewed more than once without additional
polling of the CMC: </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">. c)
<b><i>if substantive changes are made</i></b> to a document that
has completed review without technical comment, the Secretariat shall conduct
a final review in which Agencies can approve or reject the document but
may not suggest additional changes; </font><font size=2 face="MS Mincho">
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">As with most words in the English language
that are used in our documents, but not specifically defined, we depend
on common usage in English to define meanings. In this case we can
refer to one or more dictionary definitions for this "common usage".
Try these:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"><u>Google primary definition</u></font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">sub·stan·tive</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"><i>adjective</i></font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">adjective: <b>substantive</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">1. having a firm basis
in reality and therefore important, meaningful, or considerable.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">"there is no substantive evidence
for the efficacy of these drugs"</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"><u>Oxford dictionary definition</u></font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"><b>substantive</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"><b>adjective</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="Symbol">· </font><font size=2 face="Calibri">Having
a firm basis in reality and so important, meaningful, or considerable.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"><i>‘there is no substantive evidence for
the efficacy of these drugs’</i></font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">There are also a few uses of "substantive
change", but these tend to be organization / topic specific. A
couple that are relevant are these:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"><i>When you talk about substantive change,
you mean change that really makes a difference.</i></font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"><i> </i></font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"><i>Substantive change</i> is a significant
modification or expansion in the nature and scope of an accredited institution</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">So this specific definition mentions "accredited
organization", for us it could say "draft document", and
that would have appropriate meaning in our context. I think that
these meanings are clear. I hope you do as well.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Regards, Peter</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<p><tt><font size=3>This message and any attachments are intended for the
use of the addressee or addressees only.<br>
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole
or in part) of its<br>
content is not permitted.<br>
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system.<br>
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.<br>
<br>
Please consider the environment before printing this email.<br>
<br>
</font></tt>
<p>
<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>