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

Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:56:40 -0700

--=====================_536613093==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 11:30 AM 8/21/2003, T. Gannett wrote:
>Area Directors receive REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CCSDS DOCUMENT messages 
>because Area Directors fall into a distribution category for Agency 
>reviews.  These messages are NOT requests for the Area directors to 
>approve the document at the CESG level, and they should not be confused 
>with such requests.  They are basically only courtesy copies of the 
>distribution messages sent to various reviewer categories AFTER a document 
>has been approved for release and distribution.

OK, let's separate the issues.

1. Unavoidably, these particular  AOS Pink Sheets were sent out for formal 
Agency review without prior CESG review.

2. If you go to the "REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CCSDS DOCUMENT" at 
http://www.ccsds.org/review/rpa307/rpa307.html there is an awful lot of 
"presupposed knowledge" built into that request, e.g. --
   - the "Document Description" says "what" but not "why"
   - there is no indication of what will happen as a result of this review
   - the "Review Instructions" don't name anyone or give anyone a concrete 
action item
   - etc.

3. However, in order to get to *be* a "REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CCSDS 
DOCUMENT" item, the document will in future have to go through prior CESG 
approval. That's the process which I want to fix. If we get into the habit 
of prefacing a document with concise contextual information prior to and 
during the CESG review, then that information can be updated and 
transmitted when the CESG approves it and sends it to the CMC, and updated 
again and transmitted when the CMC approves it for Agency review. The 
virtual "Post-It" note becomes a permanent way of doing business.

4. In particular, to go back to the situation that you describe above, how 
the heck are the Area Directors supposed to know that these requests are 
"courtesy copies" that don't require their action, unless the request 
clearly and concisely states who is supposed to do something, and to what, 
and why, and when, and what happens next?

///adrian

--=====================_536613093==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
At 11:30 AM 8/21/2003, T. Gannett wrote: 
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Area Directors receive REQUEST FOR
REVIEW OF CCSDS DOCUMENT messages because Area Directors fall into a
distribution category for Agency reviews.&nbsp; These messages are NOT
requests for the Area directors to approve the document at the CESG
level, and they should not be confused with such requests.&nbsp; They are
basically only courtesy copies of the distribution messages sent to
various reviewer categories AFTER a document has been approved for
release and distribution.</blockquote> 
OK, let's separate the issues. 
1. Unavoidably, these particular&nbsp; AOS Pink Sheets were sent out for
formal Agency review without prior CESG review. 
2. If you go to the &quot;REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CCSDS DOCUMENT&quot; at
<a href="http://www.ccsds.org/review/rpa307/rpa307.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.ccsds.org/review/rpa307/rpa307.html</a>
there is an awful lot of &quot;presupposed knowledge&quot; built into that request, e.g. -- 
&nbsp; - the &quot;Document Description&quot; says &quot;what&quot; but not &quot;why&quot; 
&nbsp; - there is no indication of what will happen as a result of this review 
&nbsp; - the &quot;Review Instructions&quot; don't name anyone or give anyone a concrete action item 
&nbsp; - etc. 
3. However, in order to get to *be* a &quot;REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CCSDS DOCUMENT&quot; item, the document will in future have to go through prior CESG approval. That's the process which I want to fix. If we get into the habit of prefacing a document with concise contextual information prior to and during the CESG review, then that information can be updated and transmitted when the CESG approves it and sends it to the CMC, and updated again and transmitted when the CMC approves it for Agency review. The virtual &quot;Post-It&quot; note becomes a permanent way of doing business. 
4. In particular, to go back to the situation that you describe above, how the heck are the Area Directors supposed to know that these requests are &quot;courtesy copies&quot; that don't require their action, unless the request clearly and concisely states who is supposed to do something, and to what, and why, and when, and what happens next? 
///adrian 
</html>

--=====================_536613093==_.ALT--