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

Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
Fri Jul 8 17:15:41 UTC 2016


Nestor,
        I like the idea of the semaphore .
For the area project it may be I was not clera but I did not change my 
mind: trhe best is that each wg is reporting about that. If the 
duplication is required, then we should be careful with copy and paste.
Have a nice week end

Gippo



From:   Nestor Peccia/esoc/ESA
To:     Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
Cc:     "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec(cesg" 
<cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>, "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   08/07/2016 16:39
Subject:        Re: [CESG] New draft of "CESG report to CMC"template


Gippo

My comments, and a new update attached.

@ADs/DADs: Please comment this draft

ciao
nestor
=============================
SLIDE #5: IS THE BOX AT THE BOTTOM NEEDED ?  I want to gather more AD's 
view to reach a conclusion. My personal view is that we can use a 
semaphore at the top of the page and delete the box.
SLIDE #5: PLANNING BOX OK except for
- Activity background color identifies the book 
SLIDE #5: TYPO OK
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. WG can produce 100 
charts, but for the CESG report 2 charts per WG (it could be exceptions, 
but 2 is the rule). We should avoid too verbose reports.
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 My initial 
idea was to put one table for all WGs as Area summary (as SIS did and CMC 
recommended). Your initial comment was that this was too much trouble and 
error prone. My second suggestion was individual tables per WG and an easy 
compilation as Area Summary. and now you are commenting in the other 
direction.(due to cut / paste errors). Too picky.
SLIDE #7: Title 
I would change from:  Xxx Area:  Resources Discussion for Approved 
Projects 
To: Xxx Area:  Resources ISSUES   OK
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. Wrong. Read clarification. Once the issue with 
missing proto 2 is solved this chart will disappear. 
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. I 
do not agree. The number of new WIs for the next 6 months is reduced and 
it is better that the AD produces him/herself this table
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  Not 
agreed. It is a nice summary for the CMC

[attachment "d03-CESG-Report-to-CMC-Fall 2016 Template.pptx" deleted by 
Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] 


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/a7ffc80f/attachment.html>


More information about the CESG mailing list