[CESG] Fw: CESG review of website products/implementations

[Nestor.Peccia at esa.int]

Dear all,
This issue will be added as an agenda item of our next telecon on 1st July 
2013
ciao
nestor
----- Forwarded by Nestor Peccia/esoc/ESA on 24/06/2013 08:53 -----

From:
"Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)" <mike.kearney at nasa.gov>
To:
"Tai, Wallace S (JPL-9030)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]" 
<wallace.s.tai at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Nestor.Peccia at esa.int" 
<Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Cc:
"Secretariat (secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org)" 
<secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:
21/06/2013 18:00
Subject:
CESG review of website products/implementations



Nestor and Wallace:  I have a small concern about the way CCSDS is posting 
software and product info on the website.  The Secretariat typically takes 
requests from vendors to put things on the ?Compliant Products? portion of 
the website and just does it.  But the Secretariat doesn?t have a CCSDS 
technical background to know if what?s being posted is really valid, or 
even if it passes a ?sanity check? of reasonableness. 
 
On the CCSDS ?Implementations? page, tThere are two groups in the nav bar 
on the left?  ?Compliant Products? (Vendor commercial products) and 
?Implementations? (Free prototype software downloads). 
 
And Compliant Products are further grouped like this:
·         Space Domain Products 
o    Spacecraft Platforms 
o    On-Board Systems 
o   Space Qualified ASICs 
·         Ground Domain Products 
o    Commercial Ground Networks 
o    Command & Telemetry Data Processing 
o   Internet TCP Accelerators 
 
My concern is that the Secretariat doesn?t really have the knowledge or 
expertise to insure that (1) The grouping and organization of the products 
like this makes sense and is easy for our users to navigate, and (2) the 
listed items pass a ?sanity check? that they are valid products/downloads. 
 
 
The technical expertise of CCSDS is in the CESG.  So I?m wondering if we 
can ask the CESG to take some responsibility for this.   Options are: 
 
(1)    A one-time review of the site by a CESG volunteer, or maybe all 
ADs/WG Chairs
(2)    A six-month cycle of reviews by a handful of ?implementation 
reviewers?
(3)    A permanent assignment to some technical guy in the CESG to be the 
?Implementations monitor?
 
And maybe a designated CESG POC for ?Implementations? could do two 
functions: 
 
(1)    When a request comes in to the Secretariat, they can get 
concurrence from a technical expert that it makes sense. 
(2)    Actually go out and look for products to be added to the website? 
right now there is no advocacy, and products are added mostly when the 
Secretariat stumbles across them.  Requests from vendors to add things are 
quite rare. 
 
What are your thoughts about this?  Needed/optional/unnecessary? 
 
   -=- Mike
 
Mike Kearney
Lead Technology Manager
Mission Operations Laboratory
NASA MSFC EO-01
+1-256-544-2029
 
"Good ideas are not adopted automatically. They must be driven into 
practice with courageous impatience."
                                         - ADM Hyman G. Rickover
 

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/20130624/81aa148f/attachment.htm