[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 18 September 2015 - System Architecture Working group re-start

Shames, Peter M (312B) peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Wed Nov 4 00:59:52 UTC 2015 

Hi Erik,

We do have a candidate.  That is me.  Neither the CMC nor the CESG provided any alternatives.

I would, however, welcome another candidate qualified to lead this work.  Too bad that Takahiro is no longer able to participate on the team.

Thanks, Peter


From: Erik Barkley <Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 5:48 PM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>, Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>>, Mario Merri <Mario.Merri at esa.int<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int>>, Brigitte Behal <Brigitte.Behal at cnes.fr<mailto:Brigitte.Behal at cnes.fr>>
Cc: CCSDS Tech Support <ccsds_techsupport at aiaa.org<mailto:ccsds_techsupport at aiaa.org>>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: RE: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 18 September 2015 - System Architecture Working group re-start

Peter,

Technically I do not have any conditions on the poll as I really only put a comment in saying it would be nice to know who the working group chair is. Per your email, apparently we have no candidates identified yet. That is unfortunate. I have nothing further to add with regard to this poll other than to note it would be good if we could find a qualified candidate as I do believe, and has always been the case, that a clear architecture definition is needed. I believe we have good start with the cross support architecture that has been defined.

Best regards,

-Erik

From: Shames, Peter M (312B)
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 2:25 PM
To: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>>; Mario Merri <Mario.Merri at esa.int<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int>>; Brigitte Behal <Brigitte.Behal at cnes.fr<mailto:Brigitte.Behal at cnes.fr>>; Barkley, Erik J (3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: ccsds techsupport <ccsds_techsupport at aiaa.org<mailto:ccsds_techsupport at aiaa.org>>; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: Re: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 18 September 2015 - System Architecture Working group re-start
Importance: High

Dear Gippo, Mario, Brigitte, and Erik,

I sent this out on 20 Oct, expecting to hear some response to the dispositions of conditions.  I am sure that you are all rushing to get your own materials ready for the working meetings, but I need to do the same for the SEA SAWG.  Since there has been total silence in response to this request for feedback I am going to assume that means that you are all in complete agreement.

If this is not the case please signal ASAP since I want to close the poll and to request a CMC review of the SAWG re-start.

Thanks, Peter


From: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 4:21 PM
To: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>>, Mario Merri <Mario.Merri at esa.int<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int>>, Brigitte Behal <Brigitte.Behal at cnes.fr<mailto:Brigitte.Behal at cnes.fr>>, Erik Barkley <Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: CCSDS Tech Support <ccsds_techsupport at aiaa.org<mailto:ccsds_techsupport at aiaa.org>>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: Re: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 18 September 2015 - System Architecture Working group re-start

Dear All,

Attached please find the SEA SAWG BoF responses to the conditions raised on the CESG poll that closed 18 Sept.  There are two documents attached:

  *   A spreadsheet that turns these conditions into a set of distinct topics that have each been addressed.
  *   A Concept Paper that provides the requested background information, rationale, and task descriptions (including supporting models showing the relationships among these separate projects), and that otherwise covers all of the topics identified in the CCSDS  YB section 6.1.3.3.5 regarding Concept Papers.
And …

  *   The SAWG draft projects in the CCSDS Management Framework have been updated to align with the most current, and reasonable, set of dates.  There are both near term and future projects, as requested by the CMC.
  *   The CESG and CMC were polled, on 21 Sept, asking for qualified candiates for the WG Chair.  There were no responses of any sort.
Please indicate at your earliest convenience if these responses now satisfy all of the conditions that were raised.   There were some CESG procedural considerations that are really outside the scope of the SEA to address, so these were deferred to the CESG meeting.

Best regards, Peter


From: <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> on behalf of CCSDS Tech Support <ccsds_techsupport at aiaa.org<mailto:ccsds_techsupport at aiaa.org>>
Date: Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 2:47 PM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 18 September 2015

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2015-09-001  Request to re-start the System Architecture Working Group (SEA-SA)


Results of CESG poll beginning 04 September 2015 and ending 18 September 2015:

Abstain:  0 (0%)
Approve Unconditionally:  3 (50%) (Barkley, Shames, Scott)
Approve with Conditions:  3 (50%) (Merri, Behal, Calzolari)
Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

############################
Barkley - Comments:  I consider projects 2 and 5 to be of relatively urgent need.   It will also be good to know who the proposed WG chair is.

############################
Merri - The following conditions are raised:
1) The charter seems to mix up together too many topics that have only marginal relations. I believe that the most critical task is the "CCSDS Reference Architecture", which is long awaited (see SM&C WG Open Letter to CCSDS of September 2009), and this is where the WG should focus on, also in view of the limited resources available. Please look at the attached edited version of the charter with Brigitte’s and my comments where we retained the following topics as of highest priority:
- CCSDS Reference Architecture
- CCSDS Glossary Refresh
and eliminated (which may be done later by requesting specific project approvals):
- CCSDS XML standards (shouldn't this be the output of the SEA-XSG?)
- RASDS refresh (do we need this? Is it urgent? Who has used/will use it?)
- CCSDS Registries & Information Model (shouldn't this be the output of the SEA-SANA?).
In our view the CCSDS Reference Architecture should serve as the reference for all our WGs, our user community and IOAG. It should also, to a certain extent, anticipate and apportion future work in line with the “London Agreement”.

2) Looking at the list of draft projects (http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/AllOpenChartersWithDraftProjects.aspx) it is not clear how do they match with the tasks of the charter. Also 3 "Reference Architecture" documents look overdone and we think CCSDS should have only one reference architecture (as a minimum the book titles are confusing and the charter lacks clarity). Please clarify.

3) As done for the MP&S WG, the nomination of the chair and deputy chair cannot be done by means of the draft charter. You should consult with the CCSDS Agencies, identify valuable candidates, and make a proposal to the CESG. Please remove the name of the proposed chair.

4) Expanding on point 3, we are concerned that your proposed participation as chair of this WG will take away important resources from the SEA AD role, thus reducing the effectiveness of your work in one or both areas. In addition and more importantly, we consider a conflict of interest that the same person is at the same time AD and WG chair within the same area.

5) YB section 2.3.3.1 states: "No WG will be initiated by CCSDS unless a credible resource profile has been prepared and at least two agencies have agreed to provide the necessary support". We could not find any of this. Are the manpower figures that you provide in the various projects agreed with the other agencies? Do they match the CCSDS cost model?

6) Please provide the concept paper as required by YB section 6.1.3.3.5. This should also clarify some of the points above and/or commented charter.

############################
Calzolari - Charter - http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Charters/DispForm.aspx?ID=19
With respect to the conditions by MOIMS Area, I want to underline that I think we all agreed (in San Antonio?) that a concept paper is the needed document to bridge between real target/schedule and the bare essentiality of CWE charter/projects.  Such a concept paper is therefore very important to check inter relationship among the proposed projects and they scheduling.
In particular, it is hard to understand why so heterogeneous projects are proposed such that the WG would require so many areas of expertise not necessarily overlapping.
Moreover, it is not possible to understand which projects shall be approved together with the charter for immediate start and which projects should actually be included only for later start (i.e. Draft Projects to be eventually listed at http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/AllOpenChartersWithDraftProjects.aspx ).
Note that this splitting should be described in the Concept paper.
With respect to the projects, their schedule seems to be quite inaccurate.

It is not clear whether the (Restart) BOF has had any meeting where the members have approved the proposed charter etc and where Agency representatives have declared their support to the projects that are going to start at approval time.

Was it ever agreed that a resurrected WG keeps the same chairperson(s)? I think that a call for nomination is required when a WG is restarted.

Project 1 - CCSDS Standards Reference Architecture - http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=557
The resources part looks a statement of intents or a call for partnership that should have verified before submitting the project for immediate start.,
Book Editor is proposed to be NASA, but there is a request for resources to other CCSDS Area.
CCSDS Areas cannot provide resources, only Agencies can. If there is a need for coordination with other Agencies this shall be expressed differently. If this is a multi area project this should be assigned to a multi area WG (as e.g. SDLS WG that is actually a SEA + SLS WG).
Prototypes rows shall be empty as N/A.
Start date is in the past (3 August 2015)

Project 2 - CCSDS XML Guidelines - http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=559
Document number says YB while Document Type is unknown. I think an initial guess for document type is mandatory as it drives resources.
This looks a project for immediate start (Dec 2015). Did Agencies confirmed contribution?

Project 3 - Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Issue 2) - http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=556
This looks a project for immediate start. Did Agencies confirmed contribution?
Starting August 2015 for publication on February 2016 looks strange/unrealistic.

Project 4 - Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Issue 3) - http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=558
This project should be entered as DRAFT Project for eventual approval at due time.

Project 5 - Registry Management Policies - http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/DispFormDraft.aspx?ID=560
Document number says YB while Document Type is unknown. I think an initial guess for document type is mandatory as it drives resources.
This looks a project for immediate start. Did Agencies confirmed contribution?
Starting August 2015 for publication on May 2016 looks strange/unrealistic.

Total Respondents: 6

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

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:  Once Conditions are met start CMC Poll

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20151104/8b464c46/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 807 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20151104/8b464c46/attachment.gif>

More information about the CESG-All mailing list