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

Wed Nov 4 08:31:47 UTC 2015

Peter,

indeed I am swamped with a lot of things to do, however I do plan to 
answer. Apologies for the delay, but I understood that we have 1 month to 
answer. 

Regards,

__Mario

From:   "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:     "Gian Paolo Calzolari" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>, "Mario 
Merri" <Mario.Merri at esa.int>, "Brigitte Behal" <Brigitte.Behal at cnes.fr>, 
"Barkley, Erik J (3970)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc:     "ccsds techsupport" <ccsds_techsupport at aiaa.org>, "CCSDS 
Engineering Steering Group - CESG All" <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   03/11/2015 23:25
Subject:        Re: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Poll closing 18 September 
2015 - System Architecture Working group re-start

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>
Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 4:21 PM
To: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>, Mario Merri <
Mario.Merri at esa.int>, Brigitte Behal <Brigitte.Behal at cnes.fr>, Erik 
Barkley <Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Tech Support <ccsds_techsupport at aiaa.org>, CCSDS Engineering 
Steering Group - CESG All <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> on behalf of CCSDS Tech Support 
<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>
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 

[attachment "blank.gif" deleted by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA] 

This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20151104/7a96ba70/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 807 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20151104/7a96ba70/attachment.gif>