[CMC] CCSDS relationship to the ECSS [RE: CMC-R-2006-01-00]

[Adrian J. Hooke]

At 01:07 AM 4/12/2006, Soula Jean-Marc wrote:
>Another comment on an almost independent subject: your email below made me 
>realize that I'm not sure of the definition of a "clean consensus" and I'm 
>not aware of the official processing we have in CCSDS in case not all of 
>the votes are showing "adopt". Should we consider that all such votes are 
>stalled in CCSDS ? Who takes care of these situations ? Should we come 
>back on all previous such cases, even if they were already considered 
>approved ? Maybe a good agenda item for our upcoming meeting in Moscow.

Jean-Marc; I believe that Mr, Kaufeler has clarified the status of the ECSS 
communique. Presumably this request will be formally submitted by ECSS if 
they decide to move forward?

On the subject of "consensus", there is indeed quite a serious problem 
within both the CMC and the CESG concerning lax voting procedures. In far 
too many cases, resolutions are being approved even though only a minority 
of the required delegates have cast a concrete vote. In order to make 
progress, the general rule has been to view a "non-vote" as a "yes vote". 
But that rule avoids the issue of whether a person who fails to cast a vote 
has actually read or studied the written documentation.

Yes, I do think that the CMC needs to discuss this. My personal opinion is 
that voting is a serious matter and should be REQUIRED by every CESG Area 
Director and by every CMC Principal Delegate, and that any voting period 
that concludes without a complete set of ballots being cast should be 
declared void until everyone has submitted a concrete vote. But this 
implies several things, including an enforcement mechanism.

Best regards
Adrian

Adrian J. Hooke
Chairman, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group (CESG)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20060412/25ba716c/attachment.html