[CESG] Revised updates to CCSDS Org & Proc doc, A02.1-Y-4c1
Barton, Richard J. (JSC-EV811)
richard.j.barton at nasa.gov
Mon Sep 28 13:30:19 UTC 2015
Nestor,
Actually, it seems to me that both of those statements could be true. Sometimes the individuals in the BoF will have knowledge of resources that are available for the WG and sometimes they will not, but I see your point. If we always move forward as if no resources have yet been identified for a new WG, then it will emphasize to the CMC that it is their job to prioritize work and find resources for that which needs to be done. At the moment, it seems that they often look to the CESG to find the resources or hope that they will be found. Unfortunately, my feeling is that they will just respond by denying any requests for new work until such time that someone can “guarantee” to them that resources are available.
Rick
Richard J. Barton, Ph.D.
Wireless and Communication Systems Branch
NASA Johnson Space Center
2101 NASA Parkway
Mail Code EV811
Houston, TX 77058
281-483-1444 (office)
281-483-5830 (fax)
713-818-4076 (cell)
From: <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>" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto:Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>>
Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 at 7:52 AM
To: "Shames, Peter M (JPL-312B)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: CCSDS CESG -- <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: Re: [CESG] Revised updates to CCSDS Org & Proc doc, A02.1-Y-4c1
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<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>>, "CCSDS CESG --" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> on behalf of Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int<mailto: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<mailto: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<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>>,
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<mailto: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<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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20150928/dd44e853/attachment.html>
More information about the CESG
mailing list