[Secretariat] Re: [CMC] Interpretation of charter text and CSSA WG Charter

Thu Aug 2 11:41:44 EDT 2012

Dear Mike,

You clarified me on the 1st. issue I had commented you in my previous message. 
Done. Thank you.

Concerning the declaration of documents in the Charters. 

I understood your reasoning for the declarations of documents in the WG 
Charter. It still seems to me that experience suggests that the WG would 
need some sort of -flexibility- at Charter level for -eventual-, strictly justified, 
need that may eventually become necessary in respect to possible changes 
(be them, in the nature of a book, naming, partial change in content or, in 
extreme cases, in cancelling of a document, etc.) in the course of deliverables
(products) which are under strict consideration in their associated, necessarily 
scheduled Program of Work. It is implied that the scheduled WG Program of 
Work is always expected to strictly derive from the terms of the associated 
WG Charter. 

Naturally, this reasoning would also imply that -changes- in the WG scheduled 
Plan of Work, in any case, would have to be properly justified when submitted 
to CMC, in the same way as it has been necessarily preceeded by an 
associated Charter, which has also been proposed to the CMC, in advance.

This is a proposal for your and CMC possible considerations.   

Thank you for your attention.

With my best regards,
Eduardo
INPE/CCSDS  
__________________________________________________________________

From: Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01) 
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:22 AM
To: Eduardo W. Bergamini ; CCSDS Management Council 
Cc: Nestor.Peccia at esa.int ; Barkley, Erik J 
Subject: RE: [Secretariat] Re: [CMC] Interpretation of charter text and CSSA WG Charter

Greetings, Eduardo,  

When I said:

Ø  The WG is authorized to begin work on the document *only after* after a project is also developed and submitted for a CMC poll

I was simply emphasizing that no work on the document can begin until after a project is submitted.   Having the book listed in the charter is simply getting approval for the scope to include that document.  The WG can begin work on a document *only after* a project is approved.   

I think the confusion may be that I used the word "developed".   I was referring to the development of a *project plan* with resources and schedule.  I was not referring to the development of the document itself.   

Did that clarify?  

You suggested that another option would be that the charter text would include only a list of topics, not a list of documents.  This is the same as saying that the document list is *not allowed* in the charter text.  I also considered this, but I concluded that greater clarity of the scope of the work is achieved by listing the documents.   I think it is best to leave this up to the WG chairs, and they can either include it or exclude it, depending on what makes the description more clear.  It needs to be as clear as possible for the CMC to vote on it.   Therefore I decided against forbidding the list of documents in the charter text.   However, if the CMC members feel that we should revisit this, I'll be happy to.   

Best regards,  

   -=- Mike

Mike Kearney

CCSDS Chairman and General Secretary 

www.ccsds.org

****************

Mail Code EO-01

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center

Huntsville, Alabama  35803, USA

+1-256-544-2029

Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov

From: secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Eduardo W. Bergamini
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 10:31 AM
To: Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01); CCSDS Management Council
Cc: Nestor.Peccia at esa.int; Barkley, Erik J
Subject: [Secretariat] Re: [CMC] Interpretation of charter text and CSSA WG Charter

Dear Mike,

I have a comment. It is related to your phrase in the attached message:

The WG is authorized to begin work on the document *only after* after a project is also developed and submitted for a CMC poll (including resource estimates and agency agreements). 

Where I felt some apparent contradiction -between- the saying ... 

"to begin work on the document *only after*"

and the saying ...

"after a project is also developed"

In other words, there is an apparent contradiction between saying that a

work on a document is being proposed and that the corresponding project

has already been developed. 

But, my interpretation is wrong because you may have meant that a project 

may have already been developed -although- a work on a corresponding 

CCSDS document has not yet been written. If so, please, just confirm me.

Changing to another aspect of the whole issue. A suggestion is being made.,

as follows, for your and CMC possible consideration.

The Charter could only, although very firmly and to the best of precision 

in its assertions, (very) clearly declare a list-of-topics (or other name) 

which are proposed to be (firmly) covered by the WG. 

The mentioned (firm) list-of-topics (or like) would, tentatively, reflect a

firm intention to have, each of them, as directly correspondents to future

CCSDS books, which would be expected to be produced and delivered as 

CCSDS  products, by the WG. 

However, it would be implicitly acceptable under the terms of the Charter

that each of items of the list-of-topics may or may not become a

book of the type: Blue, Magenta, Green, or else. 

On the other hand, the WG Program-of-Work and associated scheduling, 

since its very first version, would (as usual) express or declare in clear 

terms what are the deliverables (products) which are under consideration 

as work items and, additionally, also since the beginning, what is the 

planned or intended nature for each of the programmed deliverable, i.e., a 

BB, MB, GB, or else. 

In principle, it would be acceptable that at some point in time, the WG may, 

after a plausible justification, decide in a definitive fashion to change 

the nature (BB, MB, GB or else) of one or other of the scheduled work item 

deliverables.

Thank you for the opportunity.

With my best regards,

Eduardo

INPE/CCSDS

_________________________________________________________________

From: Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01) 

Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:17 AM

To: CCSDS Management Council 

Cc: ccsds techsupport ; Nestor.Peccia at esa.int ; Barkley,Erik J 

Subject: [CMC] Interpretation of charter text and CSSA WG Charter

Dear CMC members:   

There has been some concern with the text of this proposed charter, expressed by Martin Pilgram in his provisions, and also from me when I first read this charter.  The charter lists in the text that the CSSA WG will develop certain books, and this change adds a new book, a "concept" Green Book.  However, there is no project added to the Framework for this, and no resources indicated.   

http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Charters/DispForm.aspx?ID=49

I propose this interpretation.   

When there is text in a charter saying what books will be developed, this is a "scope" statement only.  It says that the scope of work of the working group is allowed to be broad enough to include the creation of these types of books, or these book titles.  But that only is intended to bound the scope of the working group, not to authorize work to begin on the books.   

The WG is authorized to begin work on the document *only after* after a project is also developed and submitted for a CMC poll (including resource estimates and agency agreements).  

Therefore, the text of this charter is OK to be approved if the other aspects are OK to the CMC members.  The WG chair is naturally wanting the CMC to confirm that this overall scope is OK before he puts effort into developing the project plan for the document.  If the CMC approves this scope, then he will develop the project plan (schedule, resources) and then submit it to the CMC for approval.   

I considered other possibilities.  We could forbid the mention of books in the charter, only in the project.  But that makes it more difficult to understand the intended scope of the WG.  Or, we could absolutely require that no charter scope is approved unless the accompanying projects are approved at the same time.  But that may cause unnecessary work for the WGs in the case that we disagree with the scope.  So I think the interpretation above is best.  

Unless we hear some objections from the CMC members, we will explain this interpretation to the WG chairs via the CESG-all mail list.  

Also, we still do not have enough votes on this document (below) to pass the charter.  If you have not yet voted, please vote soon.   

http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/cmc/polls/default.aspx

Best regards,

   -=- Mike

Mike Kearney

CCSDS Chairman and General Secretary 

www.ccsds.org

****************

Mail Code EO-01

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center

Huntsville, Alabama  35803, USA

+1-256-544-2029

Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov

From: secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:secretariat-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of ccsds techsupport
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 10:41 PM
To: cmc-exec at mailman.ccsds.org
Cc: Barkley, Erik J
Subject: [Secretariat] [CMC Alert] Re: New CMC Polls - Reminder Poll Closing August 1st

All,

There have been no votes cast for the poll below.

Thanks,

Brian Oliver

CCSDS IT Tech Support

From: Brian Oliver <ccsds_techsupport at aiaa.org>
Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 11:05 PM
To: "cmc-exec at mailman.ccsds.org" <cmc-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: "Barkley, Erik J (3170)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: New CMC Polls

Dear CMC members,

A new CMC poll has been posted to the CWE:

CMC-P-2012-07-002 Approval of Changes to the 3.07 Cross Support Space Communications Architecture Working Group Charter

The closure date for this poll is 01 August 2012.

This poll can be accessed via the following link:

     http://public.ccsds.org/sites/cwe/cmc/polls/default.aspx

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
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/20120802/16889dca/attachment.html