[CMC] Actions and issues in CSS Area

[Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)]

Dear CMC Colleagues:

You may recall that in our telecon on October 18, we looked at a few action items that should have been due at the telecon for discussion:


CMC-A-2011-05-03


Erik Barkley will provide additional information on the Service Management Lifecycle issues and recommended options to the CMC for CMC members to review at their midterm telecon.



Action: Erik Barkley

Due Date: July 1, 2011

Status: Open


CMC-A-2011-05-04


Erik Barkley will provide resource estimates and any additional information on the CSTS framework by August 1, 2011 for the CMC to review. CMC will then discuss this issue at their fall telecon (one month prior to the Moscow meeting).



Action: Erik Barkley

Due Date: August 1, 2011

Status: Open


In our telecon, Jean-Marc expressed concern that some guidance was needed from the CMC to those CSS working groups so that they could have effective business at the Boulder meetings (next week).   That was why the action items had the due date to support the CMC telecon before the Boulder meeting.

These two items both concern the scope of work to be included in document projects that are currently underway.

(1)    The Service Management Lifecycle issue centers around the question about whether *additional* phases of the lifecycle will be included in the current document project.

(2)    The CSDS Framework issue centers around the question of whether *additional* capabilities (faster uplink, etc.) will be included in the current document project.

Although the second action focuses on resource estimates, the real question is on the scope of current work.  The resources is a factor in the decision along with other pros and cons (schedule, IOAG priorities, etc.).

The reason these were not brought to the CMC in our telecon is that the descriptions of the capabilities and the lifecycle phases were not adequately completed, and the was not yet a full assessment of the pros and cons of the various options.

Erik proposes that the work in Boulder should then focus on detailing these options out (capabilities, lifecycle phases, pros/cons, etc.).  Those greater details will then be made available to the CMC at our Moscow meeting.  I would envision that we have a discussion in Moscow, and then after the Moscow meeting, if necessary, we can have a CMC poll to decide which option we should pursue to resolve the issue.

In the meantime, I recommend we revise the descriptions of these two actions to better reflect the real intent.  I propose this:


CMC-A-2011-05-03


Concerning the Service Management Lifecycle question of scope (which lifecycle phases) in Cross Support Area (CSS) document projects, Erik Barkley will provide recommended options to the CMC to consider for resolving this issue.



Action: Erik Barkley

Due Date: November 15, 2011

Status: Open


CMC-A-2011-05-04


Concerning the Cross Support Transfer Service (CSTS) Framework question of scope (which capabilities) in Cross Support Area (CSS) document projects, Erik Barkley will provide recommended options to the CMC to consider for resolving this issue.



Action: Erik Barkley

Due Date: November 15, 2011

Status: Open


Unless we hear objections from the CMC members, that will be the forward plan to work these actions and resolve these issues.

Best regards,

   -=- Mike

Mike Kearney
NASA MSFC EO-01
256-544-2029


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20111027/570f7e2a/attachment.htm