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

Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:09:56 -0400

--=====================_6537189==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 02:56 PM 8/21/2003, Adrian J. Hooke wrote:
>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?

PART 1:  MESSAGE FORMAT

In response to 4, REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CCSDS DOCUMENT messages have been 
going out for a number of years.  Their format and the type of information 
they convey have remained constant during that time.  It is encouraging to 
know at least one person has read one, but no one has raised a complaint 
before now.  I do not suggest that the messages as they stand could not be 
improved, and if improvements can be identified they will be 
implemented.  But there is a context in which changes to the messages must 
be viewed.

You see a single instance of a message to a single group, but it is in fact 
one message among many that are generated for each review document and 
distributed to different types of reviewer organizations.  These several 
messages are, in turn, only one type of form generated for a given 
review.  Various other supporting forms, including a variety of Web pages, 
are generated for each review, and all these materials rely on the same 
source materials, consisting of discrete, named units of information.  In 
this context a change to a single form represents a change to 
infrastructure, and I do not enter into such adventures without a clear 
idea of what I am doing.

So far, elements suggested as improvements to the REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF 
CCSDS DOCUMENT messages are either kinds of information that do not 
necessarily exist as discrete, nameable units, which I could use, or kinds 
of information that 1) I do not have readily available, 2) I know from 
experience will not be supplied with any consistency, and 3) I do not wish 
to invent on a case-by-case basis.  This objection applies to "context"; 
"why" as well as "what"; "what will happen as a result of a review"; 
"concrete action items" for particular individuals (note that these 
messages go to distribution lists, so the implication here is that we would 
have to start sending them individually to c. 100 recipients instead of in 
bulk); and especially to "etc."

Again, changes to the messages necessitate changes to infrastructure.  Such 
changes invariably have complex and unforeseen ramifications, and there can 
be no reasoned argument for making them every time there is a new review 
document for which a different set of vaguely defined types of information 
applies.  The current messages contain only information that is applicable 
to all kinds of review documents and all instances of review, and that is 
seen as a deficiency.  But with the volume of review-related material that 
attends every review, the only way for the Secretariat to deal with it 
expeditiously and reduce the likelihood of error is to use standardized 
rather than tailored forms.  That results in losing some specialized 
details that apply to one kind of review document but not to another, but 
from my perspective it is a tradeoff that is well justified.

Therefore, I will support making message format/content changes that apply 
to all kinds of review documents and all types of reviews, provided that 
any new content is guaranteed to be available at the time when the review 
announcement needs to go out.  I will resist changes that are not well 
thought out and do not take into account the exigencies of the 
Secretariat's role as review initiator for all disciplines within the CCSDS.

PART 2:  THE PARTICULAR DOCUMENT IN QUESTION

I personally find the proposed update to the AOS document to be 
ill-considered for a variety of reasons:
         1) it is a Pink-Sheet update to a document that contains an 
abundance of obsolete material (none on which is addressed by the update);
         2) it proposes a change to the VCDU header format but no standard 
mechanism for differentiating between old-format and new-format headers;
         3) it proposes a change to a document that is the source for one 
of the restructured documents, when clearly the sensible approach would be 
to retire the current document and make all future changes to the 
restructured document.

I would be impressed if the CESG would exercise its authority by summarily 
putting a stop to the review.

TG

--=====================_6537189==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
At 02:56 PM 8/21/2003, Adrian J. Hooke wrote: 
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>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? 
</blockquote> 
PART 1:&nbsp; MESSAGE FORMAT 
In response to 4, REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CCSDS DOCUMENT messages have been going out for a number of years.&nbsp; Their format and the type of information they convey have remained constant during that time.&nbsp; It is encouraging to know at least one person has read one, but no one has raised a complaint before now.&nbsp; I do not suggest that the messages as they stand could not be improved, and if improvements can be identified they will be implemented.&nbsp; But there is a context in which changes to the messages must be viewed. 
You see a single instance of a message to a single group, but it is in fact one message among many that are generated for each review document and distributed to different types of reviewer organizations.&nbsp; These several messages are, in turn, only one type of form generated for a given review.&nbsp; Various other supporting forms, including a variety of Web pages, are generated for each review, and all these materials rely on the same source materials, consisting of discrete, named units of information.&nbsp; In this context a change to a single form represents a change to infrastructure, and I do not enter into such adventures without a clear idea of what I am doing. 
So far, elements suggested as improvements to the REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CCSDS DOCUMENT messages are either kinds of information that do not necessarily exist as discrete, nameable units, which I could use, or kinds of information that 1) I do not have readily available, 2) I know from experience will not be supplied with any consistency, and 3) I do not wish to invent on a case-by-case basis.&nbsp; This objection applies to &quot;context&quot;; &quot;why&quot; as well as &quot;what&quot;; &quot;what will happen as a result of a review&quot;; &quot;concrete action items&quot; for particular individuals (note that these messages go to distribution lists, so the implication here is that we would have to start sending them individually to c. 100 recipients instead of in bulk); and especially to &quot;etc.&quot; 
Again, changes to the messages necessitate changes to infrastructure.&nbsp; Such changes invariably have complex and unforeseen ramifications, and there can be no reasoned argument for making them every time there is a new review document for which a different set of vaguely defined types of information applies.&nbsp; The current messages contain only information that is applicable to all kinds of review documents and all instances of review, and that is seen as a deficiency.&nbsp; But with the volume of review-related material that attends every review, the only way for the Secretariat to deal with it expeditiously and reduce the likelihood of error is to use standardized rather than tailored forms.&nbsp; That results in losing some specialized details that apply to one kind of review document but not to another, but from my perspective it is a tradeoff that is well justified. 
Therefore, I will support making message format/content changes that apply to all kinds of review documents and all types of reviews, provided that any new content is guaranteed to be available at the time when the review announcement needs to go out.&nbsp; I will resist changes that are not well thought out and do not take into account the exigencies of the Secretariat's role as review initiator for all disciplines within the CCSDS. 
 
PART 2:&nbsp; THE PARTICULAR DOCUMENT IN QUESTION 
I personally find the proposed update to the AOS document to be ill-considered for a variety of reasons: 
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>1) it is a Pink-Sheet update to a document that contains an abundance of obsolete material (none on which is addressed by the update); 
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>2) it proposes a change to the VCDU header format but no standard mechanism for differentiating between old-format and new-format headers; 
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>3) it proposes a change to a document that is the source for one of the restructured documents, when clearly the sensible approach would be to retire the current document and make all future changes to the restructured document. 
I would be impressed if the CESG would exercise its authority by summarily putting a stop to the review. 
TG 
</html>

--=====================_6537189==.ALT--