[Cesg-all] Result of CESG poll closing 31 January 2011

[Thomas Gannett]

Peter:

As I stated in my original response to your comment, I fully intend to 
make the change throughout the document prior to its next release.

Beyond that, this really is a wholly stylistic matter entirely within 
the purview of the Secretariat, and it seems to me it is not something 
that merits elevation to an ad-infinitum e-mail discussion among Area 
Directors and WG Chairs (unless, of course, all technical issues have 
now been resolved and there's nothing else to discuss).

Tom

On 2/3/11 12:56 PM, Shames, Peter M (313B) wrote:
>  By taking this approach we are, however, leaving the document in a 
> peculiar, and inconsistent, state.  If they are going to change any 
> text in the document use Mb/s then I suggest that they adopt it 
> throughout.  Since, in this case, that means one other editorial 
> change it should be a simple matter for the Secretariat to also effect 
> that.
>
> Peter
>
>
> From: Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org <mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>>
> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:46:11 -0800
> To: Adrian Hooke <Adrian.J.Hooke at jpl.nasa.gov 
> <mailto:Adrian.J.Hooke at jpl.nasa.gov>>
> Cc: "sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>" 
> <sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>>, CCSDS 
> Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org 
> <mailto:cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Cesg-all] Result of CESG poll closing 31 January 2011
>
> The Publications Manual requires SI notation.  In the case of the 
> RF&Mod book, which was developed prior to adoption of the Publication 
> Manual, it has been the practice at the Secretariat, whenever the book 
> is updated, to attempt to bring it closer to Publications Manual 
> requirements without expending significant resources to do so.
>
> In the case of the current update, there was a notation (Mbps) that 
> was not consistent with SI notation, and it was thus changed by the 
> Secretariat.
>
> As noted editorially in the poll results, changes made for compliance 
> with CCSDS Publications Manual requirements are not subject to 
> review;  i.e., comments concerning such changes will be ignored.
>
> On 2/3/11 9:29 AM, Hooke, Adrian J (9000) wrote:
>>
>> In view of these conflicts, we should possibly adopt a neutral 
>> standard? --
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFF_system
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20110203/922c863c/attachment.htm