[CESG] Fw: AW: CMC Provisions on CSSM projects

[Nestor.Peccia at esa.int]

Brian
Conditions have been solved. Please issue the Poll results, such that the 
CSS SM Projects can be shown as approved
ciao
nestor
----- Forwarded by Nestor Peccia/esoc/ESA on 10/12/2013 17:33 -----

From:   <Martin.Pilgram at dlr.de>
To:     <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>, 
Cc:     <nestor.peccia at esa.int>
Date:   10/12/2013 17:15
Subject:        AW: CMC Provisions on CSSM projects



Eric,
after discussion in the CMC we saw that the framework view of the charter 
gave the impression all of your identified projects are already approved. 
Mikes Web-support is looking into to have a better understanding of the 
given view.
After this discussion I am convinced with your changes and can accept the 
poll.
Regards
Martin
 
Von: Barkley, Erik J (3970) [mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Dezember 2013 04:01
An: Pilgram, Martin; peter.allan at stfc.ac.uk
Cc: Mike Kearney; Nestor.Peccia at esa.int; Tai, Wallace S (9000); 
Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int; Colin.Haddow at esa.int; Shames, Peter M (312G)
Betreff: CMC Provisions on CSSM projects
 
Martin and Peter, I note the following provisions from the CMC polls on 
the CSSM projects:
 
>From Martin: ?please update the dates for the green book, estimated dates 
have already past by. 
please update the dates for the blue book, estimated dates have already 
past by. If there are more than two drafts, include the dates for the 
firtst two and then the final white book date. 
The working group indicated in the framework a lot of other projects which 
are "agreed" on (11.11.2013), which are not listed here, because they 
start later on. If the projects should be agreed on then CMC should vote 
as well on these projets today.:
 
>From Peter: ?I agree with Martin's comments about needing to update 
information. I also note that the implication of the information in the 
CWE is that considerable work has taken place before the project came to 
the CMC for approval.?
 
 
My comments:
 
1)      Yes, Peter is correct in that work has been done prior to the 
request for CMC approval. This is, to some extent, a function of having 
adopted the revised approach at the Bordeaux meetings (which I included in 
my briefing to the CMC this past April). Prior to the approach adopted in 
Bordeaux a somewhat different approach was being pursued and the original 
project definitions had those dates but I was not confident until after 
the Bordeaux meetings and revised approach that the green book and 
schedule of services blue books projects would progress properly with the 
resources available. There are still future dates listed on these 
projects, and those are indeed correct and reflective of the current 
estimates as to delivery (i.e. the WG expects the green book to be going 
to CESG review in early 2014, the schedule book to be available for agency 
review by May 2014).   I have updated  some of the dates where it makes 
sense to do so. Nonetheless there are some dates still in the past that 
reflect the actual work done at that time.  I trust that the updated dates 
(where appropriate) satisfy the provision. 
 
2)      Yes, Martin is correct that there are several other projects that 
are to be eventually initiated, worked.  In good conscious, I cannot claim 
to have the resources available such that these projects will complete at 
their estimated dates, let alone start at the current estimated dates. The 
start date for these all tend to be quite a ways out  -- literally years 
from now.  As such, the resource picture will likely change.   My 
preference is to get the projects for which we have resources completed 
and subsequently produce a more accurate estimate as to when the further 
future projects will be completed and request their initiation (given the 
resource profile at that time.)  In this manner you do not have to review 
reports about projects that are making no progress etc.  If the CMC 
insists I can indeed make these available for vote but I prefer not to 
entertain questions as to why these projects are not advancing when they 
are in fact not scheduled to start for quite some time. I believe that 
only having those projects on the books for which we currently have 
adequate resources will help to keep both the working group and CMC 
focused on those truly active projects. Also, it is possible that there 
will be changes in the CCSDS technical landscape requiring project 
re-definition/re-evaluation.  The information will remain in the framework 
for reference.  Please let me know if this approach is adequate or if 
indeed all projects should be voted on even though some do not start until 
the 2018 timeframe. 
 
 
Best regards,
 
-Erik
 
Erik Barkley
Cross Support Services Area Director
Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems
 
erik.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov
+1 818.393.4972
 
 
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/attachments/20131210/1edc3730/attachment.htm