<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Full agreement with Mario. </div><div id="AppleMailSignature">The issue is about (too many?) late conditions at publication poll. </div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Ciao</div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Gian Paolo<br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 29. May 2017, at 15:07, <a href="mailto:Mario.Merri@esa.int">Mario.Merri@esa.int</a> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font size="2" face="Arial">Peter,</font>
<br>
<br><font size="2" face="Arial">I recall that the reason why this point was
in the agenda of the CESG was to avoid as much as possible that agency
resources are wasted by late CESG comments. The role and responsibility
of the WG chairs and ADs are clear, properly described in the YB as you
pointed out, and not challenged. It seems to me that Nestor text focuses
on the "issue".</font>
<br>
<br><font size="2" face="Arial">In fact, even assuming the unlikely case
where WG chair and/or AD have omitted their responsibility on the quality
of document, the CESG should still raise its comments (technical and non
technical) during the AR. This was the point that we had on the table and
we should not confuse the CMC.</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)" <<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</a>></font>
<br><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">"<a href="mailto:Nestor.Peccia@esa.int">Nestor.Peccia@esa.int</a>"
<<a href="mailto:Nestor.Peccia@esa.int">Nestor.Peccia@esa.int</a>></font>
<br><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Cc:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">"CCSDS Engineering
Steering Group - CESG Exec\(<a href="mailto:cesg@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</a>\)" <<a href="mailto:cesg@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</a>></font>
<br><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">24/05/2017 20:24</font>
<br><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Re: [CESG] REMINDER:
Draft Notes of CESG meeting on 15th May 2017; Proposed changes to Technical
Quality and consistency of CCSDS Books</font>
<br><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Sent by:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">"CESG"
<<a href="mailto:cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a>></font>
<br>
<hr noshade="">
<br>
<br>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri">Nestor,</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri">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 <b><i>after the fact</i></b>,
instead of putting the emphasis where it belongs, <b><i>at the source</i></b>,
is itself a problem. </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri">The point was made, more than once, that
the quality of CCSDS documents <b><i>MUST</i></b> 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. </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri">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.</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri">In the CCSDS Org & Proc in Sec 2.3.2.3,
the CESG, as a whole, is given the responsibility, as stated:</font>
<ul>
<li><font size="2" face="Calibri">a) maintaining and upholding the
overall technical quality and consistency of the evolving set of CCSDS
Recommended Standards and Practices;
</font></li></ul><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri">So the CESG is ultimately the "technical
quality gatekeeper". But each Area Director also has Responsibilities,
sec 2.3.2.4.3:</font>
<ul>
<li><font size="2" face="Calibri">d) ensuring that CCSDS documents
are properly categorized and that they embody the content and quality expected
of documents of their type;
</font></li></ul><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri">And fundamentally, the WG chair has the
initial responsibility, Sec 2.3.3.4:</font>
<ul>
<li><font size="2" face="Calibri">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;
</font></li></ul><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri">If we cannot all agree on this point then
I think there is no recourse but to bring this disagreement to the CMC.</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri">Regards, Peter</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size="3" face="Calibri"><b>From: </b>Nestor Peccia <<a href="mailto:Nestor.Peccia@esa.int">Nestor.Peccia@esa.int</a>><b><br>
Date: </b>Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 7:16 AM<b><br>
To: </b>Peter Shames <<a href="mailto:peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov">peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov</a>><b><br>
Cc: </b>CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <<a href="mailto:cesg@mailman.ccsds.org">cesg@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><b><br>
Subject: </b>REMINDER: Draft Notes of CESG meeting on 15th May 2017; Proposed
changes to Technical Quality and consistency of CCSDS Books</font>
<br><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Peter</font><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
I am not prepared to accept some of your suggested additions</font><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
i.e.</font><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size="2" color="red" face="Times New Roman"><br>
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. </font><font size="2" face="Times New Roman"><br>
... said,</font><font size="2" color="red" face="Times New Roman"> starting
with the originating WG and Area, </font><font size="2" face="Times New Roman">at
.....</font><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size="2" color="red" face="Times New Roman">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.</font><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> <br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
Why? because we agreed on the text below, on which Brigitte made
a photo with her mobile to immortalise the agreement.</font><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
</font><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> <br>
</font><mime.jpg><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
ciao</font><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
nestor</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Courier New">This message and any attachments are
intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Courier New">The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination
or copying (either in whole or in part) of its</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Courier New">content is not permitted.</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Courier New">If you received this message in error,
please notify the sender and delete it from your system.</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Courier New">Emails can be altered and their integrity
cannot be guaranteed by the sender.</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size="2" face="Courier New">Please consider the environment before
printing this email.</font>
<br><font size="2" face="Courier New"> </font><tt><font size="2">_______________________________________________<br>
CESG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CESG@mailman.ccsds.org">CESG@mailman.ccsds.org</a><br>
</font></tt><a href="https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg"><tt><font size="2">https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg</font></tt></a><tt><font size="2"><br>
</font></tt>
<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></div></blockquote><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></body></html>