[Cesg-all] Results of CESG poll closing 20 July 2010

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2010-07-001 Approval of CCSDS 
921.1-R-1, Cross Support Transfer Service--Specification Framework 
(Red Book, Issue 1) for Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 14 July 2010 and ending 20 July 2010:

                  Abstain:  1 (20%) (Moury)
  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (80%) (Shames, Peccia, Barkley, Durst)
  Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

Total Respondents:  5

No response was received from the following Area(s):

      SOIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2010-07-002 Approval of CCSDS 
652.1-R-1, Requirements for Bodies Providing Audit and Certification 
of Candidate Trustworthy Digital Repositories (Red Book, Issue 1) for 
Agency review
Results of CESG poll beginning 14 July 2010 and ending 20 July 2010:

                  Abstain:  1 (20%) (Moury)
  Approve Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Peccia, Barkley, Durst)
  Approve with Conditions:  1 (20%) (Shames)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  Wording in 1.6.2.2 for 
PTAB membership is peculiar and makes reference to people who may not 
be known outside the CCSDS "membership building on members of the 
authors of CCSDS 652.0-R-1/ISO 16363".  Suggest changing this in some 
TBD way to something more reasonable.

Same issue in Sec 3.

Sec 4 Principles is just a reference to a separate ISO spec.  Could 
either include the terms here or at least provide some sort of 
indicator of what is involved.  As documented it is rather vapid.

Sections 5 & 6 and parts of 7, 8, & 9 suffer from the same problem as 
noted in 4.  It makes me wonder why we need this document if all it 
does is make references to another document.

I must be missing something here, but is this really the sort of 
document we should be publishing if there is an existing ISO document 
that already provides most of the solid (I assume) content?


Total Respondents:  5

No response was received from the following Area(s):

      SOIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after 
conditions have been addressed

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