[CESG] Draft of revised Org & Proc Concept paper Section B1
Barkley, Erik J (3970)
erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov
Wed Nov 6 16:12:31 EST 2013
Okay with me in principle. I might have more comments depending upon what the "shall", "should", "may" statements look like.
-Erik
From: cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Shames, Peter M (312G)
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:00 PM
To: Thomas Gannett; CESG -- CCSDS-Engineering Steering Group; Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
Cc: Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
Subject: Re: [CESG] Draft of revised Org & Proc Concept paper Section B1
Hi Tom,
Ah yes. Thanks for bringing that up. It does have to be said that it takes a few of us to keep alive that "Adrian Vision" for CCSDS.
Personally I would be in favor of actually stating these as requirements and of assigning "W" or "C" numbers to concept papers. It would make them easier to track as we reference them during CESG reviews and WG activities. This process is a little more work for you, and a little more work for us, but it does not seem like a big deal. It also aligns our processes more closely with the ISO and Internet processes and that cannot be a bad thing.
I the rest of you agree I'll work wiith Tom to come up with the suitable language changes in the normative sections of the document.
Regards, Peter
From: Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>>
Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 1:50 PM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>, Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>>
Cc: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>, Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>>
Subject: Re: [CESG] Draft of revised Org & Proc Concept paper Section B1
Things that still need to be addressed:
- whether we are actually defining requirements for concept papers or simply having a rambling theoretical discussion about them: in case of the former, those requirements need to be stated as requirements rather than as descriptive prose and moved to the main section defining document requirements;
- whether Adrian's vision of assigning numbers and expiration dates to concept papers and posting them in a public location of the Web site is going to be embraced for the future or abandoned in favor of actual practice: in the case of the former those requirements also need to be stated as requirements (i.e., using "shall") and moved to the main section defining document requirements (bearing in mind that it is the responsibility of the ADs to assure that concept papers are delivered to the Secretariat for numbering and posting); in the case of the latter that part of the description should be removed from the book (but unnumbered, unposted concept papers will still need to be delivered to the Secretariat for use in polling).
Regards,
Tom
At 03:06 PM 11/6/2013, Shames, Peter M (312G) wrote:
Dear CESG Colleagues,
We have just been reviewing the updated definition of a concept paper in CCSDS A02x1y3x1 and the requirement for its use in documenting new BoFs and new WG projects. This particular formulation of Concept Paper requirements on new BoFs and new projects was prompted by issues identified with the new Space Link Protocol WG next generation protocol. However, It occurs to me that we should, in fact, be applying it uniformly to all new projects and BoFs that are presently in discussion. This would be the "even handed" and fair approach.
I do not have a complete list at hand, but here is the current set of BoF and project changes that I dug out of my notes:
* SLP WG NGSLP project
* Optical Comm BoF
* Coding & Sync WG variable and adaptive coding project
* Coding & Sync WG "slicing" project
* D-DOR Quasar catalog project
* TDE BoF
* Planning BoF
* SM&C WG file based operations project
* Post detection processing BoF (or project, depending on how that unfolds)
Are there other new project or BoF items that I have left out of this list? Can we all agree that this new CCSDS policy should be applied equally to all of these?
Cheers, Peter
From: Gian Paolo Calzolari < Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>>
Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 4:10 AM
To: Peter Shames < 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> >, " 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>>, Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>, Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>>
Subject: Re: [CESG] Draft of revised Org & Proc Concept paper section / lifetime of only nine months? etc
Peter,
if the common agreement is to keep in the documents errors just because they were not pinked, this would be fine for me as long as I am minority.
It is a matter of fact that I am not aware of anybody ever asking (and obtaining) a reference number and an expiration date. Should we start doing it now?
For the Publication Manual the present sentence is vague enough to be useless/painless whatever we do.
About "interested parties", my proposal - sorry if this was unclear - was to mention either CESG or CESG-all mailing lists. Just to be less vague.
I mentioned that my comments were not exahustive :o)
However your input is generally fine for me.
The initial list of topics would be ok.
About Erik additions:
- the Purpose should be inside the paper by default and I do not see the need for highlighting this in a dedicated bullet.
- the "Anticipated agency adoption of any proposed standards and their dependencies" could be merged in a previous bullet to state e.g. <Requirements of prospective missions and adoption impact>
- the same for " Operational scenarios related to any proposed standards to e.g. <Clear statement of expected benefits from what is being proposed and expected application scenarios>"
However no real issues for them. just go ahead as the majority prefers.
The text "the concept paper for a BoF " should better be "the concept paper produced by a BoF " to make clearer this is a BOF output and not a BOF input.
I find the sentence below somehow convoluted with respect to the actual way we work. I think this is also confirmed by Erik's comment.
"When a CCSDS concept paper has been produced by a BOF as part of its work in developing a WG charter, it must be updated as necessary (so that it has active status), and it must be submitted to the CESG as part of the WG approval process."
I would rather try to reflect that:
1) the concept paper produced by a BOF is submitted to CESG and CMC for WG approval
2) IF the WG is NOT approved, the concept paper will have to be updated for a newer submission
3) IF the WG is approved, the concept paper is archived (e.g. in CESG/CMC polls) and then the charter goes alive with changes done when/as required with new concept paper for e.g. adding new projects.
Item #3 seems to be part of the following sentence, so it seems that the unclear sentence should state explicitly that it only applies to a rejected WG creation..
I leave wording to you/Tom.
Best ergards
Gipppo
From: "Shames, Peter M (312G)" < peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
To: " Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>" < Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>>
Cc: Tom Gannett <tomg at aiaa.org<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org>>, "Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int> " <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>, CESG -- CCSDS-Engineering Steering Group <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org> >
Date: 05/11/2013 23:04
Subject: Re: [CESG] Draft of revised Org & Proc Concept paper section / lifetime of only nine months? etc
Sent by: cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>
Hi Gippo,
Most of what you are pointing at has been in this document for quite a number of years now. I suggest, in the same manner as Pink Sheet reviews, that we limit our comments and analysis to just those sections that are proposed for change. If we are really going to do an extensive revision of this document we can deal with anything else then.
Also, I would point out that all of the specific cases you mentioned for "announcement of availability" are already covered by "interested parties", without getting into specifics. Those specifics, by themselves, may be too limiting.
The file that recommends changes to the A20x1 text specifically deals with the proposed contents of the Concept Paper. You did not mention this, which was the purpose of this "Pink Sheet" revision, so I assume by your silence on this matter that you agree with what was proposed. Is that the case?
Tom will have to address any disconnects between what is documented in A02x1 and the actual processes that are carried out re assignment of numbers .
Regards, Peter
From: Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>>
Date: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 12:00 PM
To: Peter Shames < peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: Tom Gannett < tomg at aiaa.org<mailto:tomg at aiaa.org> >, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org> >, Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int> >
Subject: Re: [CESG] Draft of revised Org & Proc Concept paper section / lifetime of only nine months? etc
Peter (but not only :o),
Do we really need <lifetime of only nine months>?
Moreover, was this <The Secretariat will then assign the concept paper a reference number and a date of expiration> ever done?
<will announce its availability to one or more mailing lists of interested parties>
who are the interested parties?
I think they could be CESG and affected WGs.
For WGs we may have the originator WG (that would know about it) or the WG that shall do the work (if the paper comes from external source) or the WGs impacted by the work even if this is done in another WG.
All in all, would it be simpler to limit distribution to CESG mailing list or better to CESG-all?
<All that is necessary is to observe some basic formatting rules that are established by the Secretariat in the CCSDS Publications Manual>
Really?
The word "concept" is not found in that manual.....
More comments may follow if I find more than two minutes to dedicate to your input :o)
Regards
Gippo
From: "Shames, Peter M (312G)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov> >
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Cc: Tom Gannett <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net<mailto:thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> >
Date: 03/11/2013 01:09
Subject: [CESG] Draft of revised Org & Proc Concept paper section
Sent by: cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>
Dear CESG Colleagues,
Attached is a draft of the proposed revisions to CCSDS Org & Proc concept paper section, Annex B1. This update is to be inserted along with a reference to Annex B1 in Sections 2.3.4 and 6.1.1. This file contains the original text of Section B1, with the proposed changes shown using Track Changes so that you can see what has been modified. The primary changes consist of the following:
1. Clarification of there being two general types of concept papers, one for WG formation and the second for specific documents or topics
2. Addition of a bulletized list of topics common to both types
3. Addition of an added bulletized list of topics specifically for BoF Concept Papers
I will note that Gippo and Gilles should recognize some of their own words in these two sets of topics, since they are derived, in part, from their inputs to the Org & Procs doc and from their requests for specific topics to be addressed in the Next Generation Space Link Protocol concept paper. I believe, as revised, that these are suitable for use in all potential future standards and WG concept papers.
Your feedback is solicited.
Best regards, Peter
[attachment "CCSDS A02x1-Y-3x1 Annex B1 CCSDS CONCEPT PAPER.docx" deleted by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] _______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:CESG at mailman.ccsds.org>
http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg
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.
_______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:CESG at mailman.ccsds.org>
http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg
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.
Thomas Gannett
+1 443 472 0805
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20131106/cc97ef26/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the CESG
mailing list