[CESG] Is it correct what we show on the web for Recently Completed Reviews?

[Shames, Peter M (312B)]

I find it rather weird that we are having this discussion at all.  CCSDS is an open organization.  The reviews that we hold ask members of our agencies, and of observer agencies and associate organizations, to review our documents and provide feedback.  This is all an open and public process.  The people who participate in it, for the most part, are professional and courteous and are also respectful of the process and each other.  We do not see the sorts of "flame wars" or derogatory discussions that are all too prevalent on social media.

Given that this whole process is open, and that the only "semi closed" part is the technical discussions that take place when we, within a working group, try to figure out how to disposition the RIDs.  At the end of that process the results of the disposition are again made public.  That is a required part of the process.

What purpose will be served by hiding any of this?  If people do not want to have their private opinions, as expressed in RIDs, made visible they can choose to word them in a way that will bear public scrutiny.

If there are doubts about how we have agreed to operate I suggest that you review the CSDS ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES document, A02.1-Y-4.  A simple search for "RID" and "disposition" will pull up the relevant sections.

Thanks, Peter



From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Gian Paolo Calzolari <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 6:32 AM
To: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [CESG] Is it correct what we show on the web for Recently Completed Reviews?

Dear ALL,
        at https://public.ccsds.org/review/default.aspx we list the CCSDS Review ongoing or completed.

AFter the recent web site updates, for the completed review we only show the RIDs (BTW, only those submitted by NASA via the web interface).
Conversely it is impossible to access the old call for review including the related Red or Pink Book.
Is this correct?

My opinion is that - on the public page -  we should rather show what we asked (most important the red/pink books).
Conversely the RIDs should be treated as more confidential information normally limited to WG Members. However right now this is only affecting NASA so they should speak up on this. However it is also true that we the approach stays, in future all RIDs could be shown. Is this wanted by Agencies?

CESG may discuss the matter in a one of the future webex meetings.

Regards

Gian Paolo



[cid:image001.gif at 01D2730B.9A540DC0]  [cid:image002.gif at 01D2730B.9A540DC0]

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/20170120/1ff99be4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 48607 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20170120/1ff99be4/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 33725 bytes
Desc: image002.gif
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20170120/1ff99be4/attachment-0001.gif>