[CESG] Requesting CESG approval to drop the “CMC Poll for Agency Review"

Mon Apr 27 03:11:17 EDT 2026

Hi Daniel, Erik, All,

In my opinion it also depends on what is purpose of keeping them in the loop (i.e. CMC in cc). If it just about notifying them about the ongoing process, but without any specific action to be performed by them (check, object, etc.), I think it’s ok. If on the contrary, we would like to give them the possibility to object about the process or in any case ask more details I don’t think that putting them in cc is the best approach. My concern is from the fact that the overall process is going to be much more automatized than what we were used to in the process that was pretty much email based. On the contrary it will be now pretty much happen all through CWE and related web services. As such in my opinion if the CMC should still have a say in the process, I don’t think the manual intervention is really the best way and therefore I’m afraid the CMC poll would still be a better option just from a process automatization standpoint.

My 0.02 cents,

Tomaso

From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of Daniel Fischer via CESG
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 9:02 AM
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 343J) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>; Singh, Somendra {Simon} (GSFC-5820) <simon.singh at nasa.gov>; CESG Mailing List <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>; Oliver, Brian H. (HQ-CG000)[Agile Decision Sciences] <brian.h.oliver at nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [CESG] Requesting CESG approval to drop the “CMC Poll for Agency Review"

Hi Erik

Yes, I agree. We CC them but it needs to be clear that there is no action from them expected unless they want to intervene.

I would question the need for the second CC after the poll. CMC members are very busy, and we should not flood them (this will also reduce their ability to filter out the important emails). Interested CMC members will follow the poll and its resolution. 

Cheers,
Daniel

ESA – European Space Agency
Dr. Daniel Fischer (he/him) I  Lead Ground Systems Engineering Architect

Ground Segment Engineering and Innovation Department
Directorate of Operations
ESOC I Robert-Bosch-Str. 5, 64293 Darmstadt, Germany
Tel: +49 6151 902718
 <mailto:Daniel.Fischer at esa.int> Daniel.Fischer at esa.int   I    <http://www.esa.int/> www.esa.int

From: Barkley, Erik J (US 343J) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov <mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov> > 
Sent: Friday, 24 April 2026 18:54
To: Daniel Fischer <Daniel.Fischer at esa.int <mailto:Daniel.Fischer at esa.int> >; Singh, Somendra {Simon} (GSFC-5820) <simon.singh at nasa.gov <mailto:simon.singh at nasa.gov> >; CESG Mailing List <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org> >; Oliver, Brian H. (HQ-CG000)[Agile Decision Sciences] <brian.h.oliver at nasa.gov <mailto:brian.h.oliver at nasa.gov> >
Subject: RE: Requesting CESG approval to drop the “CMC Poll for Agency Review"

Hi Daniel,

Perhaps we can ask Brian to cc the CMC whenever a poll for CESG agency review is initiated? And similarly an automated cc email notification when the poll is complete and/or all the conditions have been resolved? 

Best regards,

-Erik

From: Daniel Fischer <Daniel.Fischer at esa.int <mailto:Daniel.Fischer at esa.int> > 
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 22:59
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 343J) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov <mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov> >; Singh, Somendra {Simon} (GSFC-5820) <simon.singh at nasa.gov <mailto:simon.singh at nasa.gov> >; CESG Mailing List <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org> >; Oliver, Brian H. (HQ-CG000)[Agile Decision Sciences] <brian.h.oliver at nasa.gov <mailto:brian.h.oliver at nasa.gov> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Requesting CESG approval to drop the “CMC Poll for Agency Review"

Hi Erik, all,

What about just informing the CMC of a new CESG poll for agency review?

In the rare case that an agency has an issue with a book that goes to AR, they could “manually” intervene.

Cheers,
Daniel

ESA – European Space Agency
Dr. Daniel Fischer (he/him) I  Lead Ground Systems Engineering Architect

Ground Segment Engineering and Innovation Department
Directorate of Operations
ESOC I Robert-Bosch-Str. 5, 64293 Darmstadt, Germany
Tel: +49 6151 902718
 <mailto:Daniel.Fischer at esa.int> Daniel.Fischer at esa.int   I    <https://urldefense.us/v3/__http:/www.esa.int/__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!NOHQVM0l940legEGabkvGrkffIQKikKGhCngPSb5smxqgIByNx2Fk6EjIRTQxWIdQ3J_kOS-nOUcWHv3N-YPe0uiNH_51zAr16o$> www.esa.int

From: Barkley, Erik J (US 343J) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov <mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov> > 
Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2026 19:38
To: Daniel Fischer <Daniel.Fischer at esa.int <mailto:Daniel.Fischer at esa.int> >; Singh, Somendra {Simon} (GSFC-5820) <simon.singh at nasa.gov <mailto:simon.singh at nasa.gov> >; CESG Mailing List <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org> >; Oliver, Brian H. (HQ-CG000)[Agile Decision Sciences] <brian.h.oliver at nasa.gov <mailto:brian.h.oliver at nasa.gov> >
Subject: RE: Requesting CESG approval to drop the “CMC Poll for Agency Review"

Hi Daniel,

Ultimately I'm in favor of using some sort of modified process to help speed this up. Certainly, I agree that the CMC has initially approved the project. From a devil’s advocate kind of point of view, it could be argued that the project perhaps has not proceeded along the lines in which a CMC member or members have envisioned (although maybe this is not really an issue provided we have good communication between CESG and CMC which I think we do).  I think having some sort of CMC stamp of approval with regard to proceeding to agency review does not hurt.  So my counterproposal, so to speak, is to run the CESG and CMC polls for agency review strictly in parallel. Typically the CESG is given 2 weeks to approve a recommendation for agency review and I see no reason why CMC cannot be given the exact same 2 weeks. This can also serve as a formal notice for imminent review for CMC members as they may be able to help in organizing the agency reviews – or at least helping to indicate priority for getting a book reviewed on timely basis inside their agency.  Not to mention providing support at programmatic level along the lines of “standard X is about to go to agency review; we will need to get persons A, B, C from program/project Y to participate in this review”.   

As a bottom line, I am willing to give the CMC-less agency review approval approach a try, but just want to make sure we consider potential pit falls. I will also note that CESG does not necessarily represent all agencies in the same way that CMC does. 

Best regards,

-Erik

From: Daniel Fischer <Daniel.Fischer at esa.int <mailto:Daniel.Fischer at esa.int> > 
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 06:50
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 343J) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov <mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov> >; Singh, Somendra {Simon} (GSFC-5820) <simon.singh at nasa.gov <mailto:simon.singh at nasa.gov> >; CESG Mailing List <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org> >; Oliver, Brian H. (HQ-CG000)[Agile Decision Sciences] <brian.h.oliver at nasa.gov <mailto:brian.h.oliver at nasa.gov> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Requesting CESG approval to drop the “CMC Poll for Agency Review"

Hi all,

Just a few notes on Erik’s comments:

The CMC has initially approved the project to create the book, so they have confirmed that they are behind the project. As such I do not see the need to re-check if they are still supporting this before going to Agency review. They can always “stop” the publication at the point of publication review should worst come to worst. But I would not see this as a serious possibility as well. In the end agencies are well represented in the working groups and I imagine that any concerns in that respect would be addressed during the editing phase.

I would also do not see a big possibility that an agency would boycott an agency review by rejecting the book (has this happened in the past?). It is true that Tom in the past has inquired with the review coordinators in case no RIDs have been received however I could imagine that this could be done autonomously by the system someone if needed but also we have to trust a bit in the review coordinators to execute their task.

In summary, while I do agree that we open the process to a potential problem that will now only come to light at publication review, I do believe that the benefits outweigh this since I do not think there is a very high likelihood of this occurring (but I am also ready to be educated by past events).

Cheers

Daniel 

ESA – European Space Agency
Dr. Daniel Fischer (he/him) I  Lead Ground Systems Engineering Architect

Ground Segment Engineering and Innovation Department
Directorate of Operations
ESOC I Robert-Bosch-Str. 5, 64293 Darmstadt, Germany
Tel: +49 6151 902718
 <mailto:Daniel.Fischer at esa.int> Daniel.Fischer at esa.int   I    <https://urldefense.us/v3/__http:/www.esa.int/__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!ODT4_CFlY1xj2TyVw_3ZIXXKblDc-rNTJujQmJ5DKmHC4sOHwVTqFWy_BCsVpjH1Hm-WhKNmFXJ67jHeKSPaO9rvKm6RNfqpGdc$> www.esa.int

From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> > On Behalf Of Barkley, Erik J (US 343J) via CESG
Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2026 02:55
To: Singh, Somendra {Simon} (GSFC-5820) <simon.singh at nasa.gov <mailto:simon.singh at nasa.gov> >; CESG Mailing List <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org> >; Oliver, Brian H. (HQ-CG000)[Agile Decision Sciences] <brian.h.oliver at nasa.gov <mailto:brian.h.oliver at nasa.gov> >
Subject: Re: [CESG] Requesting CESG approval to drop the “CMC Poll for Agency Review"

Simon,

Overall, I am sympathetic to the idea.  But I am curious if you propose some sort of mechanics or process should an agency "not forward the proposed document for review within their agency".  Will this necessarily be conveyed to the CCSDS Secretariat?  In the past, during agency reviews, the Secretariat (read Tom Gannett) used to keep track of the agency review coordinators and would send out email reminders etc. that the agency review is coming to an end and that they need to supply any RIDs from the particular agency back to the overall review coordinator, etc.  Presumably in this case where the agency refuses to review the book, should there be some sort of rejection notice at the level of the agency back to the overall review coordinator? And if there are multiple agencies that reject the review then what is the point of the agency review? It may be that there is in fact some value in running the CMC review in parallel with the CESG review. Presumably with the CMC (and therefore the head of delegation for the agency) approving the agency review there then should not be downstream agency rejection of the review. I do wonder about this – more to the point, I have to wonder if CESG will be seen as sufficiently "authoritative" in launching agency reviews.

Best regards,

-Erik

From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> > On Behalf Of Singh, Somendra {Simon} (GSFC-5340) via CESG
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2026 07:59
To: CESG Mailing List <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org> >; Oliver, Brian H. (HQ-CG000)[Agile Decision Sciences] <brian.h.oliver at nasa.gov <mailto:brian.h.oliver at nasa.gov> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [CESG] Requesting CESG approval to drop the “CMC Poll for Agency Review"

Dear All,

This is request to get CESG approval to drop the “CMC Poll for Agency Review”. If CESG agrees then we will send a similar request to CMC as well. I believe that there is general acceptance to the proposal, but this email is trying to move forward in a formal way. 

Brian,

I am not sure if this needs to go out as formal poll request, but In case it does, can you please initiate the request. Thanks

Following screen shot provides the process we intend to follow . 

Following screenshot shows the abstraction of current process and the “processing step (CMC Poll for Agency Review)” this request is seeking to drop.

Best regards

Simon Singh

CCSDS SOIS Area Director

CCSDS SOIS-AP WG Chair

NASA/GSFC DTN Systems Engineer

443 538 7176 c

This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int <mailto:dpo at esa.int> ). 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20260427/ce4e4bf6/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20260427/ce4e4bf6/attachment-0001.bin>