[CESG] RE: [CMC] Re: Repository Audit and Certification Working Group

[Adrian J. Hooke]

At 09:12 AM 4/22/2008, Nestor.Peccia at esa.int wrote:
>I believe that we should do an analysis accross all the WGs and BOFs.
>Otehrwise is too RAC-centric? This is a very good topic for CESG and CMC in
>Japan.

Absolutely correct. The RAC triggered this discussion, but it is not 
fair to pick just on them. The CESG should do a zero-based review of 
all WGs and BOFs, including an assessment of the "interoperability 
value" of the work and whether or not they have made their 
deliverables as agreed. The first step is to get a better integrated 
picture of the program of work than we currently have in the Area 
reports. That could take the form of:

1. A table listing each group and a very short summary of its 
technical objectives and  planned deliverables.
2. A multi-year schedule chart showing the major milestones of each 
group, along with a vertical "today" string and some kind of color 
coding as to whether deliverables are on schedule or not. This should 
preferably be just a few sheets with about ten projects on a sheet.

///adrian

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20080422/ba07bd78/attachment.htm