[CMC] On your pondering.

[Eduardo W. Bergamini]

Adrian,

I wish to express my agreement with your pondering. It is in the line of what 
I understand to be what was derived from the CMC and IOAG joint meeting, 
back in 2004 (?), held in CNES. 

The well established procedure of CCSDS in mustering and driving sufficient 
effort among its members for the development of a consensus approved 
Recommendation can be (to say the least) minimized, otherwise. Clearly, 
with special emphasis for those agencies who are not IOAG members, as 
well. 

I can hardly imagine two categories (or classes ...) of CCSDS membership 
"represented" by a nominal, single category one. For sure, without 
tergiversations, I understand that this possibility would not not be under 
consideration. It would be a complete contradiction in respect to all the
truly multilateral motivations that led to the criation and maintenance of 
CCSDS, as we know it, so far. 

Unless, a natural concensus may be reached among members that CCSDS 
may have to be disbandedor discontinued. I remember hearing this type of 
phrasing in the past, in some of the CMC meetings. It is true that this 
possibility has, by principle, to be honestly accepted as an everlasting one, 
although not desired by all of us, CCSDS members. I do believe. 

With all the different challenges that have been always faced, CCSDS has 
been doing its "homework" quite well. More than that. I understand that 
CCSDS has naturally justified or, at least inspired, the creation of other 
interoperability and cross-support motivated organizations, as we can clearly 
see at the moment, as they gradually come into the scene. In principle, a 
natural very healthy and desirable result. I also understand that, in principle 
they all have capability to learn on how to co-exist and add-value to each 
other for the joint benefit of them all and, above all of the major communities 
which, in one way or another, they represent and are responsible for, by 
consequence. 

We all have to take care for not killing the "golden-egg-laying-chicken" we 
have been presented with, as a result of such a long, hard work... Much,
very much lay ahead of us, with plenty and more than plenty, enough for 
saturating commitments from all the interoperability/cross-suportability 
motivated, already existing community. Competence and value addition has 
to be a permanent and fundamental moto, in the context.

Regards,
Eduardo
INPE HoD
to CCSDS
_________________________________________________________________
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Adrian J. Hooke 
  To: Soula Jean-Marc 
  Cc: Esfandiari, Mary A. (GSFC-450.0) ; Costrell, James (HQ-CG000) ; Rush,John J. (HQ-CG000) ; paolo.maldari at esa.int ; Klaus-Juergen Schulz ; Tai,Wallace S ; Chris Taylor ; Nestor Peccia ; Clason,Roger N. (GSFC-453.0) ; Brown,Nadia S. (GSFC-450.0)[SGT] ; Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01) ; Xiaofei Zhou ; Younes,Badri (HQ-CA000) ; Adde,Barbara (HQ-CG000) ; Goian-Paolo Calzolari ; Deutsch,Leslie J ; Wolfgang Hell ; Vrotsos,Pete (HQ-CG000) ; Weber,William J ; Enrico Vassallo ; Favier Jean-Jacques ; S. K. Shivakumar ; Mikhail Vasiliev ; Narita Kaneaki ; Manfred.Warhaut at esa.int ; Martin,Warren L 
  Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 2:44 PM
  Subject: [CMC] RE : RE : IOAG-12 "Final Acts"


  At 07:33 AM 11/27/2008, Soula Jean-Marc wrote:

    I will be satisfied if you follow Manfred's suggestion on the inclusion of the CNES memo and of the wording of  "One delegation expressed a different view of the priority assigned to the ..."

  In such cases where there are internal IOAG disagreements about priorities, it would be very useful to have a clear definition about what that implies when the IOAG "advises" CCSDS with respect to potential needs for future standards.

  The IOAG contains only a subset of the CCSDS agencies. Firstly, it must be clear that the IOAG cannot *direct* a CCSDS agency to expend resources on a standards development if that agency isn't represented in the IOAG. Secondly, if the IOAG agency delegates have differing views of priorities, then is it understood that the corresponding CCSDS agency delegates will each weigh those differences when deciding whether or not to allocate their CCSDS resources to a new standards development?

  Best regards
  Adrian

  Adrian J. Hooke
  Chairman, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group (CESG) and
  CCSDS Technical Liaison to the IOAG




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  _______________________________________________
  CMC mailing list
  CMC at mailman.ccsds.org
  http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cmc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20081127/2c9033fe/attachment.html