[Cesg-all] Result of recently closed CESG Polls

[ccsds techsupport]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2011-03-001 Authorization to approve Time Correlation/Synchronization Working Group  Results of CESG poll beginning 08 March 2011 and ending 22 March 2011:

Abstain:  0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally:  0 (0%)
Approve with Conditions:  2 (40%) (Gilles, Durst)
Disapprove with Comment:  3 (60%) (Peccia, Taylor, Calzolari)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

MOIMS AD

Peccia Nestor<http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/cesg/polls/_layouts/1033/UserDisp.aspx?ID=14>

DISAPPROVE WITH COMMENT (state detailed reasons for disapproval)

ESA general position vis-a-vis Time Correlation and Synchronization WG

- The Time Correlation BOF met in London in the afternoon of Wednesday 27 October with very limited attendance (3 x NASA + 1 ESA + 1 FSA )
- The proposed Charter was distributed by the BOF convenor on 27/10/2010 16:10 with a request for comments.
- ESA commented that they did not accept the Charter (i,e. there was no Consensus in the BOF)
The SEA report presented at the CESG and CMC does not indicate Agency consensus. In addition the report did not reflect the BOF meeting discussions

As far as we have been informed by the ESA rep in the WG,
 there is no London meeting report from the Time Correlation BOF and the updated charter was never distributed to BOF Members for a review

The ESA position is that while we are willing to participate in a WG that delivers a Magenta book documenting the existing Time code usage, we will not support a WG with the much wider scope of activities presented in the draft Charter.

Our request is that the BOF first agrees a charter before any further proposals to form a working group,








SIS AD

Durst Robert<http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/cesg/polls/_layouts/1033/UserDisp.aspx?ID=23>

APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied)

1) Schedule needs to be revised to reflect reality -- WG chartering happening later than expected in the schedule by about 5 months.

2) Why is the survey of similar work undertaken in other bodies not applicable?  Is it because it wasn't performed or because the findings were that there is no similar work done by anyone else?  This requirement in a charter is to promote CCSDS looking beyond itself to other sources of technology, and it's not one to be discarded with a simple "NA."

3)  Again, why is mitigating technical risk not applicable?








SLS AD

Calzolari Gian Paolo<http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/cesg/polls/_layouts/1033/UserDisp.aspx?ID=38>

DISAPPROVE WITH COMMENT (state detailed reasons for disapproval)

ESA general position vis-a-vis Time Correlation and Synchronization WG

- The Time Correlation BOF met in London in the afternoon of Wednesday 27 October with very limited attendance (3 x NASA + 1 ESA + 1 FSA )
- The proposed Charter was distributed by the BOF convenor on 27/10/2010 16:10 with a request for comments.
- ESA commented that they did not accept the Charter (i,e. there was no Consensus in the BOF)
The SEA report presented at the CESG and CMC does not indicate Agency consensus. In addition the report did not reflect the BOF meeting discussions

As far as we have been informed by the ESA rep in the WG,
 there is no London meeting report from the Time Correlation BOF and the updated charter was never distributed to BOF Members for a review

The ESA position is that while we are willing to participate in a WG that delivers a Magenta book documenting the existing Time code usage, we will not support a WG with the much wider scope of activities presented in the draft Charter.

Our request is that the BOF first agrees a charter before any further proposals to form a working group,








SLS DAD

Moury Gilles<http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/cesg/polls/_layouts/1033/UserDisp.aspx?ID=119>

APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS (state conditions that must be satisfied)

Proposed charter is very ambitious with 3 books to produce covering the complete range of correlation/synchronization techniques covering both near earth and deep space missions. Credibility of this charter is heavily dependent on agencies resources anticipated for this WG. Please clarify the agencies commitment for the participation to this WG.








SOIS AD

Taylor Chris<http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/cesg/polls/_layouts/1033/UserDisp.aspx?ID=168>

DISAPPROVE WITH COMMENT (state detailed reasons for disapproval)

I don't recall any CESG discussion on this one and after discussing with the ESA rep on the working group, there does not seem to be an agreement on the charter. I've looked for the charter on CWE but it doesn't seem to be posted. Please could we have a copy so as to better understand what is proposed and which Agencies aer supporting.


Total Respondents:  5

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

SEA

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2011-03-002 Approval to dissolve Time Code Formats Working Group Results of CESG poll beginning 08 March 2011 and ending 22 March 2011:

Abstain:  0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally:  5 (100%) (Gilles, Durst, Peccia, Taylor, Calzolari)
Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

Durst - Per the resolution's recommendation:
Thanks for your service, Time Code Formats WG chair and members!

Total Respondents:  5

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

SEA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20110330/433f0586/attachment.htm