[CMC] Re: RF & Modulation meeting in Pasadena

[Adrian J. Hooke]

Jean-Marc: I will let Jean-Luc Gerner, Gilles Moury and Enrico Vassalo 
present their justification for why they feel that these two meetings 
should be held separately in Pasadena, rather than together with the other 
working groups in Toulouse.

The CMC has the authority to direct where meetings shall be held. As a 
reminder, here are the guidelines that were established when the CCSDS was 
restructured:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Meeting Scheduling: The CMC defines the requirements for scheduling the 
overall CCSDS meeting cycle so that work results may be reported in a 
logical and orderly sequence and management decisions can be made in a 
timely manner. The following broad rules are established; however, the CMC 
may at any time issue more restrictive policies that limit the choices.

1.      There is no requirement for routine fully centralized CCSDS 
"plenary" meetings, though these may be organized occasionally if a 
suitable opportunity presents itself (e.g., in association with a major 
international conference or other CCSDS event).
2.      The CMC will meet twice per year and must publish its proposed 
meeting schedule at least two years in advance.
3.      The CMC may rotate its meetings among the CCSDS Member agencies as 
necessary to satisfy hosting protocol. However, in order to minimize travel 
costs for delegates there may be practical constraints on the choice of 
locations for CMC meetings.
4.      As a minimum, the CESG chairman shall attend the CMC meetings to 
report technical progress and make recommendations about the program of 
work. The CESG chairman may be supported by key Area Directors as he or she 
feels necessary.
5.      Consequently, the CESG meeting must be completed prior to the CMC 
meeting, with sufficient time allocated to formulate the CESG report. While 
not precluded if convenient, there is no requirement to co-locate the CESG 
and CMC meetings.
6.      As a further consequence, each Area must complete its business 
prior to the CESG meeting and with sufficient time allowed to formulate an 
Area report.
7.      Within the above constraints, each Area Director is free to decide 
if, when and where to schedule Area meetings where all Working Groups and 
BOFs will co-locate in order to provide maximum opportunities for technical 
interchange across different groups. As a general guideline, Area meetings 
shall be held in the vicinity of institutions where a significant staff 
participation in the Area exists.
8.      In the absence of requirements for an Area meeting, the WG chair 
will decide if, when and where face-to-face WG meetings are to be held. As 
a general guideline, Working Group meetings shall be held in the vicinity 
of institutions where a significant staff participation in the group 
exists. Alternative locations are permissible only if specifically approved 
by the Area Director.
9.      Area Directors are cautioned that part of their performance 
evaluation will be based on their ability to persuade their WG ands BOF 
chairs to select meeting locations based on good technical, fiscal and 
personnel scheduling considerations, rather than individual preferences. 
Put plainly, any perception that CCSDS is a "travel club" may result in 
unwelcome intervention by the CMC.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Best regards
Adrian J. Hooke
CESG Chairman


At 10:58 AM 10/12/2004, Soula Jean-Marc wrote:

>it is quite recently, last week in fact,  that I discovered that the two 
>WG's on RF&Mod and Ranging in the SLS area will have their meeting in 
>Pasadena and not in Toulouse. Moreover, the dates were advanced by one 
>month ...
>
>This doesn't conform to the information I had on the room requirements and 
>general organization of the meetings in Toulouse (Nov 15-19) for which 
>those groups had been confirmed.
>
>Having checked the registrations, it seems that these WG's will look like 
>NASA - USA meetings with one representative of ESA (chairman), except if 
>late registrations occur from now.  On the CNES side, we were planning to 
>have several persons attend the meeting in Toulouse but we have not yet 
>decided if we may send at least one representative in Pasadena, just for 
>budget reasons. I am not sure who are the usual other contributors to 
>these groups (JAXA, DLR, ... ?) and if they were made aware of this change 
>early enough to reschedule to an earlier date ...
>
>As reported by Adrian at the last CMC there is a risk that a consensus is 
>not reached by the RF&Mod WG and I'm not sure that having their meeting 
>with a reduced participation and far away from other groups (and area 
>director ?) will facilitate the consensus, in particular with those who 
>could not attend.
>
>Could you please advise how you anticipate the results of those meetings 
>with, potentially, limited participation (in number of agencies) ? Is it 
>planned to have a complementary session in Toulouse for those who could 
>not join in Pasadena ? Why do these groups meet on opposite ocean sides 
>compared to the others ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20041012/317c986a/attachment.htm