[CESG] Revised updates to CCSDS Org & Proc doc, A02.1-Y-4c1

[Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int]

Peter,
        there is nothing as an SLS ?marching army?: I am a pacifist as all 
SLSers :o)  ,

I confess that I must ask all CESGers to confirm which of the following 
two statements is true for a BOF:
1) a BOF meets, finds that there is good work to be done but, despite (at 
least) two agencies support that work, there are no resources ==> The Area 
ask to CMC to appoint a WG and give the resources.
2) a BOF meets, finds that there is good work to be done, (at least) two 
agencies support that work and provide  resources ==> The Area ask to CMC 
to appoint a WG and possibly give additional resources.

Whatever of the two statements above is true (despite we need to know 
which one is correct for operating correctly) my very last intention is to 
undervalue the resources issue and therefore my point is not mixing/hiding 
it in a bullet speaking about charter and chairs.  ===> include a 
dedicated bullet (this could be among AD Responsibilities - where the word 
resource is never present - unless the resource statements for CESG are 
considered sufficient).
Moreover, because of this very high dignity and to "to remind the CMC that 
one of their responsibilities is to support the work with resources", some 
text could be added to section "2.3.1.2 CMC Responsibilities " e.g. under 
bullet d where it could be highlighted by some additional text to the CMC 
responsibility for new WGs.
Note that something already exists in item d of "2.3.1.3 CMC Functions ".

Fine with me the other magenta changes.

Ciao

Gippo



From:   "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:     "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>, 
"CCSDS  CESG --" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, 
Date:   25/09/2015 20:31
Subject:        Re: [CESG] Revised updates to CCSDS Org & Proc doc, 
A02.1-Y-4c1
Sent by:        cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org



Hi Gippo,

Thanks for the feedback.

In the discussion yesterday we explicitly added the text to have the AD 
ask the CMC for both WG chair candiates and for resources.  I think it is 
completely appropriate to add that text into sec 2.3.2.4.3.  Unlike SLS, 
which tends to have a ?marching army? from which you can, and do, just use 
existing resources to create new BoFs, some other areas do not have these 
existing resources.  These other ?resource poor? areas have to go hat in 
hand to the agencies to seek resources.   You could say that it is cruel 
to remind them of this, but it is the case.  Anything we can do to remind 
the CMC that one of their responsibilities is to support the work with 
resources is probably an opportunity to be taken.

Other comments are placed in-line, below.  The resulting revisions to text 
follows here, with the latest changes based on your inputs marked in 
magenta.

Regards, Peter


========================================================================== 

2.3.1.2 CMC Responsibilities (pg 2-5) 
g)  providing the overall administration of the organization, including 
nominating and appointing CCSDS leadership (CESG & AD), and the very 
important function of the Secretariat; 
 2.3.2.3 CESG Responsibilities (pg 2-11) 
n)  approving WG Chairs and Deputy Chairs;
NOTE ? For fairness and to help achieve agency balance the AD proposing 
the Chair is to ask the CMC and the member agencies for nominees for new 
WG Chair or Deputy prior to requesting the CESG ballot for the WG.
NOTE ? BOF and SIG chairs are not subject to CESG approval. 
2.3.2.4.3 Area Director Responsibilities
c)  making recommendations to the CESG concerning approval for the 
chartering and formation of WGs and nominating WG chairs; requesting 
nominations of qualified WG chair candidates and contributors from the CMC 
prior to polling the CESG for WG approval;  replacing WG chairs who are no 
longer able to serve;
2.3.3.4 Working Group Chairs  (pg 2-16)
Working Group chairs are nominated by an Area Director and approved by the 
CESG. Candidates for selection as WG chairs must be recognized as a 
leading technical expert in the field covered by that WG. Candidates may 
come from any organization (including industry) and do not have to be 
employees of space agencies.   For fairness and to help achieve agency 
balance the AD is required to ask the CMC for nominees for new WG Chair or 
Deputy prior to requesting the CESG ballot for the WG.   If a Working 
Group chair can no longer serve the AD must follow the same process in 
identifying a replacement.  As a general principle, to avoid conflicts of 
scheduling or interest, a single person may only be the Chair or Deputy of 
one WG at a time.
2.3.4 BIRDS-OF-A-FEATHER GROUPS  (pg 2-18, last paragraph)
?
At such time as a BOF feels that it has enough agreement to propose 
formation of a WG, it must schedule a meeting with an AD to present its 
case. The BoF should have prepared the following materials, using the 
on-line chartering system (see Sec 5.5):
a draft charter (see Sec 5.5.1)
a candidate chair (if identified by the BOF), 
at least one project definition (see Sec 5.5.2), 
a resource profile for each project identifying expected efforts and 
contributing agencies, and
a CCSDS concept paper (see 6.1.3) outlining its technical scope. 
The AD makes the initial determination as to whether to advocate the work 
further, to recommend more BOF work on the charter, concept paper, 
projects, and resource profile, or to reject the proposal. If the AD 
recommends acceptance of the proposal, the AD must then ask the CMC for 
nominees for new WG Chair or Deputy and for adequate resources to support 
the work.  Once a proposed WG chair (and possibly deputy Chair) have been 
identified the AD must forward the draft charter, project definition, and 
resource profile, accompanied by a CCSDS concept paper (see 6.1.3) 
outlining its technical scope, is forwarded to the CESG for a decision. If 
the AD rejects the proposal, the BOF can appeal to the CESG chairman for a 
wider hearing, or it can simply dissolve. BOFs initiated from inside the 
CCSDS organization have a lifetime of no more than one year.
Added ?
6.1.3.3.4 If a BOF has to modify and resubmit the charter and supporting 
materials to meet any changes as a result of CESG review, the concept 
paper shall be updated as necessary and resubmitted as well.
 
From: <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Gian Paolo Calzolari <
Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Friday, September 25, 2015 at 7:57 AM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [CESG] Revised updates to CCSDS Org & Proc doc, A02.1-Y-4c1

All, 
        here is a couple of comments. 

I would remove "and contributors" from the proposed change to 2.3.2.4.3 
Area Director Responsibilities - item c) 
The request of contributions is made in the BOF (otherwise there would be 
no recommendation to go for WG) and nthing prevent an Agency from adding 
resources. 

Recommend leaving this in, as discussed.


Strange enough the list of "Area Director Responsibilities" seems to miss 
what is stated under 2.3.3.4 first line.
I suggest completing "2.3.2.4.3 Area Director Responsibilities - item c)" 
to state somehow that - after candidates are proposed - the AD nominates 
the Chair(s) asking CESG approval. 

Added text ?nominating WG chairs?


The proposed change to section 2.3.4 does not reflect that we agreed that 
a BOF is expected to ask agency representatives for initial chair 
candidates to be reported to the AD within the concept paper (or within 
the resource profile?) together with  draft charter, draft project(s), 
etc. 

The added text (ask the CMC for nominees for new WG Chair or Deputy and 
for adequate resources to support the work.  Once a proposed WG chair (and 
possibly deputy Chair) have been identified) does just what we discussed.  
We did not discuss any changes that involved sending the concept paper, 
the resource profile, charter, etc to the CMC prior to CESG poll.  I do 
think that the AD request to the CMC for resources probably needs to 
include at least a brief project descriptions, but thought that was so 
obvious as to not need stating.

Do you think we need to be more formal about how we describe the process 
for making this request to the CMC?


Moreover it looks as the AD can only "recommend more BOF work on the 
charter and resource profile" and not on other items of the list following 
a few lines below.
A possible rewording could something like this (better wording welcome 
:o):

At such time as a BOF feels that it has enough agreement to propose 
formation of a WG, it must schedule a meeting with an AD to present its 
case providing a BOF Package including:
 - a draft charter including candidate chairs (if identified by the BOF), 
- at least one project definition (see 5.5.1.1.1), 
- a resource profile for each project identifying expected efforts and 
contributing agencies, and 
- a CCSDS concept paper (see 6.1.3) outlining its technical scope. 
The AD makes the initial determination as to whether to advocate the work 
further, to recommend more BOF work on the BOF Package, or to reject the 
proposal. If the AD recommends acceptance of the proposal, the AD must 
then ask the CMC for nominees for new WG Chair or Deputy and for adequate 
resources to support the work.  Once a proposed WG chair (and possibly 
deputy Chair) have been identified the AD must forward the BOF Package to 
the CESG for a decision. If the AD rejects the proposal, the BOF can 
appeal to the CESG chairman for a wider hearing, or it can simply 
dissolve. BOFs initiated from inside the CCSDS organization have a 
lifetime of no more than one year.

I invented the term BOF Package to make clear what I mean, but better 
wording is surely possible and welcome.

Agreed.  See proposed changes, above.


BTW for this clause 
6.1.3.3.4 If a BOF has to modify and resubmit its charter to meet any 
changes as a result of CESG review, the concept paper shall be updated as 
necessary and resubmitted as well. 
I think that "its charter" is wrong as it is the charter of the proposed 
WG and not the BOF charter.

I wish you all a nice week end. 

Gippo 



From:        "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:        "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec" <
cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, 
Date:        25/09/2015 01:45
Subject:        [CESG] Revised updates to CCSDS Org & Proc doc, 
A02.1-Y-4c1
Sent by:        cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org



Dear CESG colleagues, 

During today?s CESG telecon we discussed one set of proposed changes to 
the CCSDS Organization and Procedures Yellow Book (CCSDS A02.1-Y-4) 
addressing soliciting WG chair nominations from agencies.  We did not 
address at all the conflict of scheduling or interest issues that have 
also been raised in recent discussions.

Please see the following proposed changes to the document.  This set 
covers only the specific topic we discussed today.   Proposed changes from 
the existing text are indicated in red.  The proposed change to deal with 
other topics are in green.

Best regards, Peter 



========================================================================== 

2.3.1.2 CMC Responsibilities (pg 2-5) 
g)  providing the overall administration of the organization, including 
nominating and appointing CCSDS leadership (CESG & AD), and the very 
important function of the Secretariat; 
 2.3.2.3 CESG Responsibilities (pg 2-11) 
n)  approving WG Chairs and Deputy Chairs; 
NOTE ? For fairness and to help achieve agency balance the AD proposing 
the Chair is to ask the CMC and the member agencies for nominees for new 
WG Chair or Deputy prior to requesting the CESG ballot for the WG.
NOTE ? BOF and SIG chairs are not subject to CESG approval. 
2.3.2.4.3 Area Director Responsibilities 
c)  making recommendations to the CESG concerning approval for the 
chartering and formation of WGs;  requesting nominations of qualified WG 
chair candidates and contributors from the CMC prior to polling the CESG 
for WG approval;  replacing WG chairs who are no longer able to serve;
2.3.3.4 Working Group Chairs  (pg 2-16) 
Working Group chairs are nominated by an Area Director and approved by the 
CESG. Candidates for selection as WG chairs must be recognized as a 
leading technical expert in the field covered by that WG. Candidates may 
come from any organization (including industry) and do not have to be 
employees of space agencies.   For fairness and to help achieve agency 
balance the AD is required to ask the CMC for nominees for new WG Chair or 
Deputy prior to requesting the CESG ballot for the WG.   If a Working 
Group chair can no longer serve the AD must follow the same process in 
identifying a replacement.  As a general principle, to avoid conflicts of 
scheduling or interest, a single person may only be the Chair or Deputy of 
one WG at a time.
2.3.4 BIRDS-OF-A-FEATHER GROUPS  (pg 2-18, last paragraph)
? 
At such time as a BOF feels that it has enough agreement to propose 
formation of a WG, it must schedule a meeting with an AD to present its 
case. The AD makes the initial determination as to whether to advocate the 
work further, to recommend more BOF work on the charter and resource 
profile, or to reject the proposal. If the AD recommends acceptance of the 
proposal, the AD must then ask the CMC for nominees for new WG Chair or 
Deputy and for adequate resources to support the work.  Once a proposed WG 
chair (and possibly deputy Chair) have been identified the AD must forward 
the draft charter, project definition, and resource profile, accompanied 
by a CCSDS concept paper (see 6.1.3) outlining its technical scope, is 
forwarded to the CESG for a decision. If the AD rejects the proposal, the 
BOF can appeal to the CESG chairman for a wider hearing, or it can simply 
dissolve. BOFs initiated from inside the CCSDS organization have a 
lifetime of no more than one year. 
 _______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
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
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20150928/764081b1/attachment.html>