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

[ccsds techsupport]

The Framework has been updated.

Thanks,

Brian

From: "Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>" <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>
Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 11:35 AM
To: Brian Oliver <briano at aiaa.org<mailto:briano at aiaa.org>>
Cc: "cmc at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cmc at mailman.ccsds.org>" <cmc at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cmc at mailman.ccsds.org>>, "cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: [Secretariat] [CESG] Fw: AW: CMC Provisions on CSSM projects

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<mailto:Martin.Pilgram at dlr.de>>
To:        <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>,
Cc:        <nestor.peccia at esa.int<mailto: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<mailto:peter.allan at stfc.ac.uk>
Cc: Mike Kearney; Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>; Tai, Wallace S (9000); Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int<mailto:Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int>; Colin.Haddow at esa.int<mailto: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<mailto: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/20131210/3379483e/attachment.html