[CESG] Updates to ICS Pro Forma presentations

[Shames, Peter M (313B)]

Somehow we are missing any discussion of the value of ICS in these discussions.  If there is a uniform opinion that they are not worth what it takes to produce them let's remove the requirement entirely.   To somehow accept the requirement, and then argue that it should be applied unevenly across interoperable standards calls the entire value proposition into question.

If the CESG thinks that ICS do not have some value that makes them worthwhile to produce let's entirely reject the requirement to do so.

Peter



From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 05:55:50 -0800
To: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>, "cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>>, Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Subject: Re: [CESG] Updates to ICS Pro Forma presentations


Nestor, Peter,
        the point about Pink sheets/books looks to me quite risky and I would avoid any mandatory statement for PICS/ICS in revised books.
The WG Chairs are complaining about resources and Having (P)ICS mandatory also for revisions would only increase resource and duration  requirements (with possible implied delays) that may impact the benefits given by the revision.

Regards

Gian Paolo



From:   Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
To:     "Shames, Peter M (313B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc:     CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Date:   08-11-11 23:36
Subject:        Re: [CESG] Updates to ICS Pro Forma presentations
Sent by:        cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>

________________________________



Peter,
My comments

I'm not clear what you are saying here.  The first part says "I would personally recommend to apply this only to Projects that start after this date,".  But then the second part says "It means that even if the Project is in the CWE but no WB has been drafted, an ICS is compulsory".

I take this to mean that if a project is in the CWE, but there is no White Book, then the ICS is required.  This does mean that if a WG has started and they only have a White Paper that an ICS is mandatory.  However, if they have drafted a White Book, I.e. A draft red Book, then this is no longer the case.
[Nestor] Agreed, but WB versions and draft RB needs to be analysed in a case by case base . If a WG is at WB V6 (as CDM) but not at draft RB status, ICS (for me) is not mandatory


I think that this is clear enough, but do want to acknowledge that we may have new WGs, or new projects in a WG, that is in White Book form but at a low level of maturity.  If a project still has a year or more to go before it can hope to be standardized I would think that the cost / schedule impact of adding an ICS is low and that the benefit is relatively high.

Would you all agree?

[Nestor] Agreed in principle, but CDM and other books are at this level.

That is what I recall as well.  But here too I would ask that we clarify that corrigenda and Pink Sheets are for relatively minor updates.   If a book undergoes enough of a revision to be issued as a new version I think we should consider adding an ICS, for exactly the same cost / benefit reasons stated earlier.  We could state in eithr case that a waiver may be requested, but I think the basic policy should be to add the ICS in this case.

Can we agree?

[Nestor] agreed in principle, but the CESG Chairs needs to have the authority to give a waiver depending of the WG chair / AD request.

ciao
nestor_______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:CESG at mailman.ccsds.org>
http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20111109/e811d98e/attachment.htm