[CMC] RE: CCSDS Charter

[Soula Jean-Marc]

Bonjour

my clarifications:

MK : " Jean-Marc, if you mean an additional section in the Strategic Plan, then that is compatible with the NASA comments.  If you mean an additional section in the charter, that is not compatible, and we still have conflicting comments.  Can you clarify?"
JMS : "My statement that you quote doesn't specially refer to the charter but to a previous comment refering to the lack of reference to the ERO goals : as it was nowhere, I just said that an additional section would be needed.
Then if you consider my next comment, which is specific to the charter, I believe it says that the charter doesn't need to be changed and that the proposed text should be used elsewhere."

MK: " Jean-Marc, Peter:  Can we agree to leave the charter as is?  Or do we need to discuss it in the upcoming CMC meeting?  In that case we won't have "CMC consolidated comments" to Nestor by his deadline."
JMS : "We may leave the charter as is. We could just comment that those ideas (items 7 and 8) should be developped in another section in the SP, where they better fit to answer the CMC ERO goals."

I hope this answers.

Best regards

Jean-Marc Soula
CNES - DCT/OP/C-STA
Advisor, GN Operations
18 Avenue Edouard Belin
31401 Toulouse Cedex 9 - France
Tel.: +33 (0)5 61 2 74647
Fax.: +33 (0)5 61 2 73135
Email: Jean-Marc.Soula at cnes.fr
De : Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01) [mailto:mike.kearney at nasa.gov]
Envoyé : mercredi 26 mars 2014 22:06
À : peter.allan at stfc.ac.uk; Soula Jean-Marc
Cc : CCSDS Management Council (CMC at mailman.ccsds.org); Nestor.Peccia at esa.int; Tai, Wallace S (JPL-9000)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]
Objet : FW: CCSDS Charter

CMC Colleagues:  You are CC on this discussion, but you are welcome to contribute comments now, by email.  Nestor (integrator of the strategic plan) wants CMC comments to the CCSDS Strategic Plan by 28 March, and he prefers them to be consolidated (meaning no conflicting comments).  The purpose of this email is to resolve conflicting statements on the CCSDS charter.  The proposed changes to the charter is the only area (I think) where we have conflicting statements.

Jean-Marc and Peter:  The three of us had comments on the CCSDS Charter which could be viewed as conflicting.  We need to resolve it by 28 March (two days from now).   This email is my attempt to resolve the conflict on schedule.

Look at the attachment.  These are total list of comments received.

Please notice that the portion of the charter under discussion starts with "the purpose of CCSDS is..." and lists several functions.  The currently approved (and un-revised) charter is here:  http://public.ccsds.org/about/charter.aspx

The proposed redlines inserted by Nestor are added under "purposes" are:


7.    To propose the CCSDS' policy and action to be taken vis-à-vis the Member Agencies, Observer Agencies, Associates and liaisons; and in particular for non Member Agencies, other Institutions and International organizations by monitoring its evolution and providing the CCSDS with appropriate recommendations to establish formal cooperation agreements, strategic partnerships and alliances.

8.    To lead the public outreach activities for communication purposes for the Member Agencies, Observer Agencies, Associates and liaisons; including organization of communications events, exhibitions at International venues, interaction with media, publication of press releases and producing all materials to be used in these events.

Nestor says in his email (below) that these were added because of "the introduction of the ERO goals. If they have to be related up and downstream, it implies we need something in the charter"

Full comments from CNES, UKSA and NASA are in the attached document, along with all comments received during this review cycle.  Read them for the full rationale from the three of us.  However, allow me to summarize:

*******************
CNES (Jean-Marc):  "The suggestion is at the minimum to have an additional section with the texts proposed by the CMC."

Jean-Marc, if you mean an additional section in the Strategic Plan, then that is compatible with the NASA comments.  If you mean an additional section in the charter, that is not compatible, and we still have conflicting comments.  Can you clarify?

UKSA (Peter):  "I certainly agree that we should not get ourselves into a situation where we would have to undertake a rigorous documentation of mission requirements...  We surely must have some requirements to work...  I suggest that we should reword this purpose rather than delete it."

NASA (Mike):  I have no issue with putting this material in the strategic plan.  I have an issue with adding it in the charter under "The purpose of CCSDS is..."

"Gathering requirements" and "outreach" are not our purpose, they are front-end processes.  The charter already documents well the purpose of CCSDS and hence should focus on what the objectives of CCSDS are, such as enabling interoperability etc...  The charter should not document the actions we take to achieve those purposes.  In that case we have many more actions to document in the charter.

In summary:  Requirements and Outreach are not purposes.  They are early process mechanisms that enable our purpose.  Hence they do not belong in the charter.  And besides, unnecessary changes to the charter are risky.

(new material)  As far as Nestor's concern that everything needs to be related upstream and downstream, requirements collection and outreach (and many other things) support "enhancements in the operation of future cooperative space missions" and "facilitate and promote the use of software and hardware developed under the CCSDS" and "promote the application of the Recommendations within the space mission community".  That is an adequate upstream to justify requirements collection and outreach elsewhere in the strategic plan.

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

Sorry if my summary was too long.

Jean-Marc, Peter:  Can we agree to leave the charter as is?  Or do we need to discuss it in the upcoming CMC meeting?  In that case we won't have "CMC consolidated comments" to Nestor by his deadline.

Best regards,

   -=- Mike

Mike Kearney
CCSDS Chairman and General Secretary
www.ccsds.org<http://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<mailto:Mike.Kearney at nasa.gov>

From: Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int> [mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 11:20 AM
To: Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01)
Cc: Afarin, James (HQ-DS00); Nick Tongson; Tai, Wallace S (JPL-9000)[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]
Subject: Re: CCSDS Charter

Mike,

I was looking at why I introduced these changes, and the reason behind are some comments received wrt

  *   the introduction of the ERO goals. If they have to be related up and downstream, it implies we need something in the charter (e.g. communications, alliances, partnership, outreach, etc.)

  1.
and the main issue is that in the previous release the CESG received comments 180 degrees apart (i.e. delete charter, do not touch the charter, consider ERO goals that can modify the charter)

in a nutshell, please this time the CMC shall deliver consolidated comments. .


ciao
nestor

This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.

The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its

content is not permitted.

If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.

Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.



Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cmc/attachments/20140327/89646c18/attachment-0001.htm