[CESG] REMINDER: Draft Notes of CESG meeting on 15th May 2017; Proposed changes to Technical Quality and consistency of CCSDS Books

[Mario.Merri at esa.int]

Peter,

I recall that the reason why this point was in the agenda of the CESG was 
to avoid as much as possible that agency resources are wasted by late CESG 
comments. The role and responsibility of the WG chairs and ADs are clear, 
properly described in the YB as you pointed out, and not challenged. It 
seems to me that Nestor text focuses on the "issue".

In fact, even assuming the unlikely case where WG chair and/or AD have 
omitted their responsibility on the quality of document, the CESG should 
still raise its comments (technical and non technical) during the AR. This 
was the point that we had on the table and we should not confuse the CMC.

Regards,

__Mario 



From:   "Shames, Peter M (312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
To:     "Nestor.Peccia at esa.int" <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Cc:     "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG 
Exec\(cesg at mailman.ccsds.org\)" <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   24/05/2017 20:24
Subject:        Re: [CESG] REMINDER: Draft Notes of CESG meeting on 15th 
May 2017; Proposed changes to Technical Quality and consistency of CCSDS 
Books
Sent by:        "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>



Nestor,
 
This point about the quality of the documents starting with the WG and the 
ADs was made several times during the CESG meeting.  This did not make it 
into your minutes, but it was spoken and discussed more than once.  The 
fact that you chose to emphasize the role of the CESG in identifying 
issues after the fact, instead of putting the emphasis where it belongs, 
at the source, is itself a problem. 
 
The point was made, more than once, that the quality of CCSDS documents 
MUST start with the Book Captain, the WG chair, and the AD for that area. 
Failing to deal with this at the source is why the rest of us, or those of 
us who do engage in the process, have all this "clean-up" work to do. 
 
The guidance in the CCSDS Organization and Process manual, CCSDS 
A02.1-Y-4, seems quite clear on this point of where responsibility rests. 
It is presented "top down" in the Org & Proc doc, but the work clearly 
starts "bottom up" in the Working Groups.
 
In the CCSDS Org & Proc in Sec 2.3.2.3, the CESG, as a whole, is given the 
responsibility, as stated:
a)  maintaining and upholding the overall technical quality and 
consistency of the evolving set of CCSDS Recommended Standards and 
Practices; ?
 
So the CESG is ultimately the "technical quality gatekeeper".  But each 
Area Director also has Responsibilities, sec 2.3.2.4.3:
d)  ensuring that CCSDS documents are properly categorized and that they 
embody the content and quality expected of documents of their type; ?
 
And fundamentally, the WG chair has the initial responsibility, Sec 
2.3.3.4:
e)  ensuring that documents developed by their WG are properly categorized 
and that they embody the content and quality expected of documents of 
their type; ?
 
If we cannot all agree on this point then I think there is no recourse but 
to bring this disagreement to the CMC.
 
Regards, Peter
 
 
 
 
From: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 7:16 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: REMINDER: Draft Notes of CESG meeting on 15th May 2017; Proposed 
changes to Technical Quality and consistency of CCSDS Books
 
Peter 

I am not prepared to accept some of your suggested additions 
i.e. 
During discussion it was made clear that the process of ensuring CCSDS 
document quality must start with the originating WG and AD, prior to the 
document ever being sent forward to the CESG. 
... said, starting with the originating WG and Area, at ..... 
The primary process changes are to require that the WG and AD?s do a more 
thorough check before sending books forward, that the members of the CESG 
provide feedback at the earliest opportunity, and that the CESG should 
issue PIDs, ad well as RIDs, during agency reviews. 

Why?  because we agreed on the text below, on which Brigitte made a photo 
with her mobile to immortalise the agreement. 

  


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.
 _______________________________________________
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/20170529/7ecc5a6a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 253349 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20170529/7ecc5a6a/attachment.png>