[CESG] New draft of "CESG report to CMC"template

Fri Jul 8 12:21:10 UTC 2016

Nestor,
        here my cent.....

SLIDE #5: IS THE BOX AT THE BOTTOM NEEDED ? 
If I remember well, in the first template from Adrian that box was at the 
very beginning of each WG report.
In that way one may guess if all the rest of the WG report is going to be 
OK, CAUTION or PROBLEM.
So my opinion in this respect is that the slid eis nbot needed in the 
position shown on your slide #5, but it could be a good preliminary 
summary if it is the very first item in the slides produced by a given WG.
If the box is retained we may want to change the first column to be "WG 
name" (unless it is clear what it should be written in that first cell) 
such that taking all inputs together it is possible to build a summary 
table for the Area.

SLIDE #5: PLANNING BOX
I would change the heading of Column 2 to "List of document for <WG 
Name>"> such that each row of the column can contain only the title.
If you plan to buind a summary table from individual tables that I would 
make the first two column top became four as follows:
- WG name (e.g. SLS-RFM)
- CCSDS Doc Ref (e.g. 401.1-B)
- Activity (e.g. Red, Pink, Draft, Update) to identifiy whether is a 
future Blue/Magenta Book, a future updated Blue/Magenta, a future Green, a 
future updated Green
- Doc Title
For the Status I would rather define a few keywords as you never what 
people can invent when they have room for free text  :o) Possible values 
con be OK, Caution, Problem, Delayed (more?). As you see the first 3 
values match the famous summary box and the last one could mean delayed 
but no problem)

SLIDE #5: TYPO 
See:  ?rep[ort to CESG

SLIDE #5: Recommendation 
I gues that Recommendation  2 Pages per WG  means that the contents 
suggested in this slide can be spread in up to two slides and then the WG 
can add more ancillary slides for "big" explanations.

SLIDE #6: Area Projects 
This slide will be of course duplicating data included by each WG.
I may understand the suggestion for such a duplication o get all the eggs 
together, but there is a risk for errors during copy and paste

SLIDE #7: Title 
I would change from:  Xxx Area:  Resources Discussion for Approved 
Projects 
To: Xxx Area:  Resources ISSUES  
Rationale: 1) you want to highlight issues not discussion. 2) The project 
is clearly approved since if there were resource issues the project would 
have not been approved.

SLIDE #8: Tables...... 
As for the planning box, I think there should be a table like this for 
each WG (i.e. add it to slide 5) such that the summary table is created 
with copy and paste as for slide 6.
The same comments as for slide 6 apply.
The same comments for the first column as for the planning table apply.

SLIDE #9: Again a duplication 
This slide will be of course duplicating data included by each WG.
I may understand the suggestion for such a duplication o get all the eggs 
together, but there is a risk for errors during copy and paste

Regards

Gian Paolo

From:   Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
To:     "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec(cesg" 
<cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   05/07/2016 15:21
Subject:        [CESG] New draft of "CESG report to CMC"template
Sent by:        "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>

Dear all, 

Please find attached the next template iteration. I have highlighted the 
changes in magenta color. I have tried to incorporate all comments, adding 
also my views. 

Some clarifications: 
1.      AD/DAD will receive a WG / SANA / SIG / BOF  report, which will in 
general contain several charts. The assumption is that each WG Chair will 
be asked to summarise its WG findings in 2 charts (1 chart for BOF / SIG ) 
 as described in chart # 5 of the template.AD / DAD can then copy / paste 
in his Area report. IS THE BOX AT THE BOTTOM NEEDED ? 
2.      Charts 6 to 11 are Area dedicated info, as follows 
Chart 6 is composed with the tables given by each WG. It is simpler to add 
1 Table after the other, than create one Table. OPEN FOR DISCUSSION 
Chart 7 shall only exist for approved Projects with missing proto 2 
resources (i.e. MOIMS and SIS). Once this issue is solved for all these 
Projects, the chart will disappear. 
Chart 8 is only for Draft projects to be submitted in the next 6 months 
for CMC approval NOT FOR ALL DRAFT PROJECTS (otherwise will be too long 
and useless for currently 64 ones) 
Chart 9 is Resolution Summary 
Chart 10 is Issues Summary 
Chart 11 is Area Executive Summary. CESG Chair is using this chart to 
derive the CESG presentation to IOAG.IT IS A MUST TO HAVE IT 
Please let me have your views.asap 

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.
[attachment "d02-CESG-Report-to-CMC-Fall 2016 Template.pptx" deleted by 
Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] 
_______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/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/20160708/e16fa8cb/attachment.html>