[Secretariat] Re: [CESG] CESG Meeting: Updated Agenda

[Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)]

Nestor:  I'm sure this may be different for different agencies, but in NASA the Systems Engineer is responsible for processes for technical decision making.  In a program/project, it is the Systems Engineer that orchestrates not only the technical decisions, but the process for making them.  So it is natural for NASA guys to expect the Systems Engineering area director to take the lead on issues related to the process of technical decision making.  Systems engineers orchestrate and conduct, for example, preliminary design reviews, critical design reviews, RID resolutions, etc.  Hence in CCSDS the equivalent role is the reason for Peter's past involvement in the "colors of books", the SANA yellow book, the Book Editor boot camp, etc.



If the CESG doesn't want to take his input from his role as Systems Engineer, then (like any topic needing an appeal route) he can bring it to me as the NASA delegate to the CMC, and I can bring it directly into the CMC as a NASA position.  But I personally think it would be better for it to be discussed in the CESG first.  It is better for Peter to bring it from a technical management perspective (not coupled to an agency proposal) so the best *technical* recommendations (in this case, technical *process* recommendations) can be made by the CESG without being hindered by the baggage of agency positions.



Also, as I'm sure you have seen in the past, the CMC really needs to have issues brought to them with recommendations for resolving them. So while the CMC "owns" the book, any change to the technical decision making process needs a recommendation on resolution from the CESG.  Because the CESG is the *technical* management wing of the CCSDS organization.  However, if the CESG is reluctant to provide a recommendation, that's OK...   The CMC can make a decision without CESG input.  But I think the process will take longer.



Tom is the book captain for the procedures manual.  No doubt.  CMC decides content.  CESG recommends content to the CMC, especially regarding the technical decision making process.



Does this help it smell better?



   -=- Mike





________________________________
From: secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] on behalf of Nestor.Peccia at esa.int [Nestor.Peccia at esa.int]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:23 AM
To: Shames, Peter M (JPL-312G)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]
Cc: cesg at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: [Secretariat] Re: [CESG] CESG Meeting: Updated Agenda

Peter
Thanks

As CESg chair, I am still struggled about who is the editorship of the YB

Are you the editor captain ?
Is Tom ?

Are both, you and Tom ?

Why are you taking all these initiatives of suggesting propositions (in particular for voting) before reaching a consensus ?

At the end of the day the CMC owns the book, neither you nor Tom. In a normal procedure the CMC must drive, and not the editor.

The whole thing smells weird to me.

We need also to discuss these aspects before starting the discussion on consensus.

ciao
nestor

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/20140324/168b6fd5/attachment.html