[Cesg-all] CMC Poll Results

[Neil Dissinger]

CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2006-06-007: Authorization to 
publish Mission Operations Services Concept Informational 
Report (CCSDS 520.0-G-2)

Results of CMC poll beginning 29 June 2006 and ending 11 
August 2006:

                 ADOPT: 8 (88.89%) (ASI, BNSC, CNES, CSA, 
ESA, INPE, JAXA, NASA)
   ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 1 (11.11%) (DLR)
                REJECT: 0 (0%)
  REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 0 (0%)

      DLR: - check Document control on consistency
- is a ground system performance not forseen (2.2.1)?
- should the spcacraft software management an autonomous 
process with no interactions to other processes in the 
spacecraft?


Results are based on responses from 9 out of 10 members 
(90%).

No response was received from the following Agencies:

FSA

Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Adopted 
Provisionally
Resulting CMC Resolution: TBD
Inferred Secretariat Action: Pending Disposition of 
Provisions

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2006-07-001: Authorization to 
discontinue formal CESG review for Standards and 
non-Standards Track documents

Results of CMC poll beginning 14 July 2006 and ending 11 
August 2006:

                 ADOPT: 5 (62.5%) (ASI, CSA, ESA, INPE, 
NASA)
   ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 0 (0%)
                REJECT: 0 (0%)
  REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 3 (37.5%) (CNES, DLR, JAXA)

      CNES: Why is the CMC asked as it seems it is already 
in place at the CESG level ?
The implications seem to be with the procedures but maybe 
also with the overall organization ... Is there a plan to 
combine CESG and CMC some day ?
It is not clear what is the problem:
- delays are not that long with e-polls ; we are granted a 
couple of weeks on votes, not months !
- the CESG members do not often vote : this is a problem, 
but will it change with the proposed process ? If they 
don't do it while they have a "must" on it, why would they 
do it when it is changed to a "may". Will it work better 
with more people involved ?
The CESG and CMC votes have different meanings and the CMC 
cannot cumulate both, under the current organization:
1) The CESG review is intended to validate the form and 
the contents of the documents before the formal agency 
reviews ; any cross area disagreement on technical issues 
is to be solved in this forum. Previously, there were 
cases of documents with negative votes at CESG level.
The CMC poll is not for a review of the documents but for 
a go-ahead on the agency review. The CMC cannot endorse 
the responsibility to place for review a document of poor 
technical quality or which conflicts with other documents.
2) The polls on new charters are validated at the 
technical level by the CESG and the CMC approval mainly 
concentrates on the resources. Another poll proposes to 
cancel the resource information in the charters : will the 
CMC be the judge for the technical contents of the 
documents ?
3) The polls for publication may be less critical as the 
AD may confirm to the CMC that the Agency Review was 
completed satisfactorily, but this only works if the CESG 
was consulted before the Agency Review.
      DLR: The role of the CMC - as long as I understand 
it is to take the technical approval of the CESG and give 
a go ahead. So the level of preparing a document up to the 
level of an agency agreement will be on the level of the 
CESG.
      ESA: Makes sense
      JAXA: My understanding is that the role of CESG is 
different from the CMC, therefore inclusive technical 
approval should be executed by CESG.

Results are based on responses from 8 out of 10 members 
(80%).

No response was received from the following Agencies:

BNSC
FSA

Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Rejected
Resulting CMC Resolution: None
Inferred Secretariat Action: No Action

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2006-07-002: Modification of 
CCSDS Working Group charter content and update procedures

Results of CMC poll beginning 14 July 2006 and ending 11 
August 2006:

                 ADOPT: 4 (50%) (ASI, CSA, INPE, NASA)
   ADOPT PROVISIONALLY: 3 (37.5%) (CNES, ESA, JAXA)
                REJECT: 0 (0%)
  REJECT WITH COMMENTS: 1 (12.5%) (DLR)

      CNES: It should be clarified how the resource 
requirements will be passed to the CMC and how the 
resource allocation will be established.
The operating plan was presented several times as the 
working document between the technical authority in the 
CCSDS and the decision authority, the main subject to work 
being the resource allocation. What is the substitute tool 
?
Also, it is not clear how the reporting from the CESG will 
integrate actual contributions.
      DLR: as long as there is no other metrics to 
validate the reliability of the workplan, I cannot accept 
the removal of the resource requirements from the WG 
charter. I can accept the arguments, but how can the CMC 
at the end rerally stear CCSDS, if there is no basis for 
setting up the working groups?
      ESA: I have sympathy for the arguments: it's 
reality. Nevertheless an AD should specify globally the 
ressources he needs and report back how much it got (the 
Agency origin of the ressource being irrelevant). However 
the Agencies need to manage their ressource (level + 
allocation). Therefore I suggest that the ressource 
allocation is managed at CMC level as a response to the AD 
requirements. This needs to be discussed and elaborated at 
the next CMC.
      JAXA: How do we manage the Resource Requirements 
information?

Results are based on responses from 8 out of 10 members 
(80%).

No response was received from the following Agencies:

BNSC
FSA

Secretariat Interpretation of Results: Rejected
Resulting CMC Resolution: None
Inferred Secretariat Action: No Action

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *