[Cesg-all] AOS PINK SHEETS (was RE: [CMC] RP A3-07 Announcement of.,.)

Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:02:39 -0700

--=====================_533365421==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 10:31 AM 8/21/2003, T. Gannett wrote:
>3) Other information, e.g., context, is likely to have little or no 
>significance to reviewers because they are likely to be experts in the 
>limited field to which the document relates.  Prior review history is 
>always noted in the Document Description (since there is no notation in 
>this case, there are no prior reviews of this revision).
>
>4) The Secretariat has gone to great lengths to keep the "Request for 
>Review" as simple as possibly to enable conveyance of basic information 
>with relative easy.  Adding additional information to the review 
>announcements/cover sheets would add clutter;  whether the value of the 
>added clutter would justify the consequent reduction in ease use is not clear.

It's here that I have to strongly disagree. Very few people work CCSDS 
full-time and when a document "comes across their desk" for review I 
believe that is not only courteous, but absolutely critical, to give them a 
terse but precise overview of what it's all about, where it came from, what 
they are expected to do with it, and what the consequences of their action 
will be.

It's my observation that for many people when these context-less "REQUEST 
FOR REVIEW OF CCSDS DOCUMENT" messages appear, if people don't know in 
30-seconds what they are supposed to do about them then they are just put 
aside and forgotten. The Area Directors are busy people and yet it is vital 
that they act promptly to review every document for technical quality and 
consistency. The only way to ensure that they understand the significance 
is to tag each request for action with a very short "staff note" preface 
(an electronic version of a stick-on "Post-It") that makes it crystal clear 
what the request is all about.

///adrian

--=====================_533365421==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
At 10:31 AM 8/21/2003, T. Gannett wrote: 
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>3) Other information, e.g.,
context, is likely to have little or no significance to reviewers because
they are likely to be experts in the limited field to which the document
relates.&nbsp; Prior review history is always noted in the Document
Description (since there is no notation in this case, there are no prior
reviews of this revision). 
4) The Secretariat has gone to great lengths to keep the &quot;Request
for Review&quot; as simple as possibly to enable conveyance of basic
information with relative easy.&nbsp; Adding additional information to
the review announcements/cover sheets would add clutter;&nbsp; whether
the value of the added clutter would justify the consequent reduction in
ease use is not clear.</blockquote> 
It's here that I have to strongly disagree. Very few people work CCSDS
full-time and when a document &quot;comes across their desk&quot; for
review I believe that is not only courteous, but absolutely critical, to
give them a terse but precise overview of what it's all about, where it
came from, what they are expected to do with it, and what the
consequences of their action will be. 
It's my observation that for many people when these context-less
&quot;REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CCSDS DOCUMENT&quot; messages appear, if
people don't know in 30-seconds what they are supposed to do about them
then they are just put aside and forgotten. The Area Directors are busy
people and yet it is vital that they act promptly to review every
document for technical quality and consistency. The only way to ensure
that they understand the significance is to tag each request for action
with a very short &quot;staff note&quot; preface (an electronic version
of a stick-on &quot;Post-It&quot;) that makes it crystal clear what the
request is all about. 
///adrian 
</html>

--=====================_533365421==_.ALT--