[CESG] Use of "Substantive changes"

[Shames, Peter M (312B)]

Mario,

This "over and over" discussion is a product of your choosing to bring it up now as an issue.  I did a little forensic investigation and that text has been in the CCSDS A02x1y document since version 3, dated July 2011.  I can only conclude that the organization has been working effectively, and using these procedures, for the last six (6) years without any substantive issues. Reasonable people have had no problem with this.

I'd have to admit to being puzzled as to why you are making it an issue now.  Perhaps you can explain what your motivation is or exactly what you think should be changed, and why?

If it relates to the recent issue with the CCSDS MO MAL Binding to HTTP(s) Transport and XML Encoding (CESG poll), I need to point out that by either measure, that of "technical issues" or that of "substantive changes are made to a document that has completed review without technical comment" this document did not meet either of those tests.  It had significant technical issues during the review and it had substantive changes made after the review.

Instead of just batting this topic back and forth please suggest some simple changes to this text that you believe would make it clearer.

I also want to be completely transparent about my motivation.  I'm committed to helping to keep CCSDS to be an effective standards organization.  That is why I take the time to review our standards and provide feedback.  That is also why I have volunteered to support Tom during the Boot Camp sessions at working meetings.  The more we all can do to improve the quality of the documents we produce, starting at the "book boss" and WG level, and involving review and vetting by the ADs before documents leave the Area, the smoother this whole process will be.

If there are changes that we can make to our procedures that will really help that I will support them.  But I really believe that the procedures are pretty good already. What will make the biggest change is if we all commit to following them, and that starts in the WG and Areas, not in CESG and Agency reviews.  I think that Nestor's slides from yesterday made that clear.

Thanks, Peter



From: Mario Merri <Mario.Merri at esa.int>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:02 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: Use of "Substantive changes"

Peter,

we keep on discussing the same thing over and over. OK, the word "substantive" is present in the YB, but not to mean "substantive technical issues". You should read the full paragraph and not only bullet c), below for everyone's convenience:

6.2.5.2 Once review of a document has been authorized, that document may be reviewed more than once without additional polling of the CMC:
a) if technical issues are identified in the course of a review, those issues must be resolved and the review must be repeated before approval can be sought for a change of document status;
b) increasing draft issue numbers shall be assigned to successive versions of the draft document released in successive iterations of the review (see annex E);
c) if substantive changes are made to a document that has completed review without technical comment, the Secretariat shall conduct a final review in which Agencies can approve or reject the document but may not suggest additional changes;
d) the Secretariat shall follow the same procedures for posting review materials and review announcement for each iteration of a review.

Paragraph a) deals with technical issues. Here no notion of substantive is present. An unreasonable person who reads this paragraph may understand that 1 technical issue is enough to call for another AR. Additionally, the notion of technical issue is not clear: is a technical issue present when there is a RID that has been marked as "Technical Fact"? And marked by who (the originator or the review coordinator)?

Paragraph c), that you quoted, refers to a document that has "completed the review without technical comments".

Therefore the concept of substantive technical issue does not exist today in the YB.

Regards,

__Mario



From:        "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:        Mario Merri <Mario.Merri at esa.int>
Cc:        CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:        15/05/2017 16:50
Subject:        Use of "Substantive changes"
________________________________



Hi Mario,

You just mentioned that you thought the word "substantive" did not appear in the CCSDS YB.  But it does, in sec 6.2.5.2 (emphasis added):

6.2.5 FORMAL AGENCY REVIEW
6.2.5.2 Once review of a document has been authorized, that document may be reviewed more than once without additional polling of the CMC:
.          c)  if substantive changes are made to a document that has completed review without technical comment, the Secretariat shall conduct a final review in which Agencies can approve or reject the document but may not suggest additional changes; 


As with most words in the English language that are used in our documents, but not specifically defined, we depend on common usage in English to define meanings.  In this case we can refer to one or more dictionary definitions for this "common usage".  Try these:

Google primary definition
sub·stan·tive
adjective
adjective: substantive
1.       having a firm basis in reality and therefore important, meaningful, or considerable.
"there is no substantive evidence for the efficacy of these drugs"

Oxford dictionary definition
substantive
adjective
•         Having a firm basis in reality and so important, meaningful, or considerable.
‘there is no substantive evidence for the efficacy of these drugs’

There are also a few uses of "substantive change", but these tend to be organization / topic specific.  A couple that are relevant are these:

When you talk about substantive change, you mean change that really makes a difference.

Substantive change is a significant modification or expansion in the nature and scope of an accredited institution

So this specific definition mentions "accredited organization", for us it could say "draft document", and that would have appropriate meaning in our context.  I think that these meanings are clear.  I hope you do as well.

Regards, Peter


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.

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/20170517/5984fcfd/attachment.html>