[Cesg-all] Results of CESG polls closing 17 February 2014

[CCSDS Secretariat]

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2014-01-001 
Approval to release CCSDS A02.1-Y-4, Organization 
and Processes for the Consultative Committee for 
Space Data Systems (Yellow Book, Issue 4) and related documents
Results of CESG poll beginning 31 January 2014 and ending 17 February 2014:

                  Abstain:  0 (0%)
  Approve Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Peccia, Barkley, Calzolari)
  Approve with Conditions:  2 (40%) (Shames, Scott)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  It 
appears that there have been some editorial 
changes introduced in moving from A02x1y3x3 to 
A02x1y3x4 that cause some un acceptable revisions 
to the CCSDS procedures.  The most significant of 
these is the introduction of voting in WG in Sec 
5.2.8.5 and the new requirement in Sec 
5.3.5.4.1.4 of all failed polls automatically 
being escalated.  This is entirely counter to 
CCSDS operating as a consensus organization and 
has the consequence of really changing the 
organizational dynamics.  These are also counter 
to the spirit of the recent discussions in the 
CESG re consensus.  There are other issues noted in the attached mark-up.

The revisions to the Publications manual A20x0y31 
are acceptable as they are.  Note that the Pubs 
manual references the new ICS document, and this 
reference also belongs in the Org & Procs doc.

The new ICS manual, A20x0y02, is in quite good 
shape.  There are just a few editorial changes 
proposed to add greater clarity to the 
distinctions between ICS/PICS and PRLs, and to 
state clearly where PRLs are required.  Also, 
since the text uniformly uses the term "profile 
RL" I recommend that this be formalized as "Profile Requirements List (PRL)".

      Nestor Peccia (Approve 
Unconditionally):  CESG has concurred initially 
with a YB version, which was later updated by the CMC.
Some of the conditions established by the ADs 
during the CESG Poll are on the newly introduced CMC updates
As the CMC is the owner of the YB, and some of 
the updates affect the current operations, I 
suggest that these issues are discuussed during 
the next physical CESG / CMC meeting (7th / 8th April 2014)

      Erik Barkley (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Note:  I am assuming that Keith's concern will be addressed.

      Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve 
Unconditionally):  Some further discussion 
between CESG and CMC is required as pointed out by Nestor.
Here below some comments to be checked/discussed.
1) Appointees as Chair/Deputy Chair or AD/DAD 
must be from different (sponsoring) agency.
I guess SOIS is not compliant (or is Stuart sponsored by UK Space Agency?).
Use 'should" instead of "must"?
2) Appointees may come from any organization 
(including industry) and do not have to be 
employees of space agencies.; however, at least 
one of Chair/Deputy Chair in CESG or AD/DAD in 
the same area must be an agency employee.
I guess SIS is not compliant.
Use 'should" instead of "must"?
3) If after 24 months (i.e., 4 meetings) the SIG 
has not reached consensus on the proposed 
objectives and guidance to the WGs, the SIG must be disbanded.
This looks as a longer-duration BOF..... 
Will/Should there be any waiver/extension chance?
4) The Systems Engineering Area (SEA) covers 
system-wide engineering aspects that are so 
pervasive that they span both the Informatics and 
Telematics Domains. The AD has the prerogative to 
define, in agreement with the CCSDS Strategic 
Plan and its related Tactical Plan, the precise 
set of work units that this Area contains at any point in time.
The latest change is the addition of the text 
stating "in agreement with the CCSDS Strategic 
Plan and its related Tactical Plan". The same text is applied to all Areas,
However, what is a "work unit"? There is no 
definition for work unit in the document.
Conversely it is clear that WG, BOFs, SIGs are "organizational units".
5) All projects of which the WG is aware should 
be included verbally in the charter.
Does it mean that the charter shall mention ongoing and future projects?

      Keith Scott (Approve with Conditions):  The 
new text of 2.3.2.4.1 could be 
problematic.  While I am contracted to NASA JPL 
for this work I am not a full-time employee of a 
space agency.  My deputy area director, Dai 
Stanton, is in a similar position.  Would 
adoption of the text in the first paragraph of 
2.3.2.4.1 require a restructuring of the SIS Area 
leadership?  Or does 'agency employee' also apply 
to contractors?  If so, I would suggest clarifying the text.


Total Respondents:  5

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

      SOIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Await resolution of comments

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2014-02-001 
Approval to publish CCSDS 
652.1-M-2,  Requirements for Bodies Providing 
Audit and Certification of Candidate Trustworthy 
Digital Repositories (Magenta Book, Issue 2)
Results of CESG poll beginning 1 February 2014 and ending 17 February 2014:

                  Abstain:  1 (20%) (Calzolari)
  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (80%) (Shames, Peccia, Barkley, Scott)
  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-2014-02-002 
Approval to publish CCSDS 871.2-M-1,  Spacecraft 
Onboard Interface Services—Device Virtualization 
Service (Magenta Book, Issue 1)
Results of CESG poll beginning 1 February 2014 and ending 17 February 2014:

                  Abstain:  1 (16.67%) (Calzolari)
  Approve Unconditionally:  4 (66.67%) (Peccia, Barkley, Taylor, Scott)
  Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Shames)
  Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

      Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  In 
Appendix A the descriptions of PICS pro forma and 
PICS are confused with the description of a PRL, 
which is a Profile Requirements List, not a PICS 
Requirements List.  A PRL is used for a set of 
protocols at an interface.  This document should 
only be describing the PICS Pro Forma for the abstract interfaces it defines.

Please fix Appendix A to align with correct terms and usage.

      Nestor Peccia (Approve Unconditionally):  I agree with Peter's comments

      Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally):  I 
think I agree with Peter about A6, not so sure 
about A5.  A5 seems to be stating which parts of 
the service specification are mandatory and which 
are optional, which SEEMS PICS-like to me.  I'll be interested in the result.


Total Respondents:  6

All Areas responded to this question.

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

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