[CESG] Draft CWE Projects for Documents due for five year Review
Shames, Peter M (312B)
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Thu Oct 22 18:29:36 UTC 2015
Whatever we agree to has to cover both cases where an existing, more or less perpetual, WG can just add this consideration during a meeting and those where a WG must be restarted in order to revisit, reaffirm, and / or update documents.
There is a distinct difference in how these are treated.
Sent from Peter's iPhone 6
Everything should be made as simple as possible,
but not simpler.
On Oct 22, 2015, at 9:22 AM, "Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>" <Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>> wrote:
Hi Gian Paolo,
I was also questioning about the fact that projects for the book revision should be added, because in my view it gives an idea of the resources needed and the specific time frame. However, I agree with you that the effort and the need for such project should be real only in the case of real re-work of those books. I am wondering whether such a clarification could be added on the charter, so that the WG leader will be in any case responsible for making projects in case the review turn to be a “re-work” of the past books.
My 0.01 cents…
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR)
German Aerospace Center
Institute of Communications and Navigation | Satellite Networks | Oberpfaffenhofen | 82234 Wessling | Germany
Tomaso de Cola, Ph.D.
Telefon +49 8153 28-2156 | Telefax +49 8153 28-2844 | tomaso.decola at dlr.de<mailto:tomaso.decola at dlr.de>
From: cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> [mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 15:11
To: CCSDS CESG --
Subject: [CESG] Draft CWE Projects for Documents due for five year Review
I see that in the ongoing poll for SOIS0-SUBNET Peter has commented "Also, I think you need to enter draft projects for the review of the various Subnetwork Service Magenta Books."
I must admit that my understanding from past discussions was different; i.e.
- the review of documenting exceeding the expiration period (normally five years, :o) is an implicit task of each WG/Area and this activity was left out of the Strategic Plan for this reason
- each time a document expires the WG is called to check it and to decide about reconfirmation or review.
- if the WG decides for review, then a CWE Project shall be created (and submitted to CMC for approval).
Having said this it looks to me that a CWE Project for reviewing an expired document should only be created if the WG decides not to reconfirm it.
I also think that such a project reduced bureaucracy as well as the creation of useless project that will have to be deleted in case the WG simply reconfirms the book.
This is my cent.
I have no problem in adapting to other approaches but let's one only ONE approach.
PS Nestor, if your agenda for Darmstadt is not full enough you can add this topic :o)
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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CESG