[CMC] RES:RES: [Cesg-all] Results of Recent CMC Polls

Fri Sep 22 16:19:03 UTC 2017

Dear James,

In addition to all other items discussed in our mid-term telecon, as of today, September 22.

I would like to ask you to opportunely consider with CMC the proposal being addressed in the most recent message as reproduced below. It faces a potential 

need in the CMC polling process and proposes a possible change in the CMC polling form as we have it, today, for providing the voter with more complete 

options in the casting of a vote. Also it proposes a NOTE for eventual missing voters on how they could (re-)approach a poll that they may have missed for 

some unavoidable or unpredictable reason. 

Thank you.

Best regards,

Eduardo 

----- 

EDUARDO W. BERGAMINI
Information Networks in Space Missions - RME
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais - INPE
Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations and Communications - MCTIC
Avenida dos Astronautas, 1758
12227-010 São José dos Campos, SP
BRAZIL
Phones : +55 12 3208 6166/6603
Fax : +55 12 3208 6150
E-mail : e.w.bergamini at uol.com.br 
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

De: Eduardo Bergamini [mailto:e.w.bergamini at uol.com.br] 
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 21 de setembro de 2017 17:16
Para: 'Soula Jean-Marc' <Jean-Marc.Soula at cnes.fr>; 'Afarin, James (HQ-CG000)' <james.afarin at nasa.gov>
Cc: 'Oliver, Brian (HQ-CG000)[Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.]' <brian.oliver at nasa.gov>; 'Nestor.Peccia at esa.int' <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>; 'CESG-All' <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>; 'CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All' <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org>; 'CCSDS Management Council(CMC at mailman.ccsds.org)' <cmc at mailman.ccsds.org>
Assunto: RES: [CMC] [Cesg-all] Results of Recent CMC Polls

Dear James and Jean-Marc,

In my previous message you received from me yesterday, related to the below mentioned subject, I felt I did miss, due to lack of time for it, at that moment, 

the inclusion of a comment on the meaning of “abstain”, in the context of our main subject. Permit me an additional comment in the direction of your 

opportune suggestion for discussion, Jean-Marc.

Classically, as we all know very well, strictly speaking, polling or voting should contemplate three options: ADOPT/YES, REJECT/NO and ABSTAIN/ELSE. 

Therefore, to be justified in its use, ABSTAIN cannot be necessarily associated to any one of the two other options. Practically speaking, I would understand 

that in the context of CCSDS polling, I would like to suggest that this third option may be included in the “CMC Polling Template”, possibly, observing the 

following modified “CMC Polling Template” form, observing the following excerpt, or like:

-----

*	Adopt
*	Adopt Provisionally (State Argument)
*	Reject
*	Reject with Comments (State Argument)
*	Abstain
*	Abstain with Premise (State Argument)

State Argument  | (box for text with argument) |

NOTE: Should an Agency miss this polling, for any internal reason, a retroactive poll from the AGENCY can be accepted after an express request (e-mail) for 

retroaction may be submitted, in a 1st opportunity, by the missing agency to the Secretariat, in principle, with Cc. to the other CMC member agencies.

| Save |     | Cancel |

----- 

In place of the current “CMC Polling Template” form:

-----

*	Adopt
*	Adopt Provisionally (State Conditions)
*	Reject
*	Reject with Comments (State Conditions)

State Conditions | (box for text with conditions) |

| Save |      | Cancel |

----- 

A suggestion for your and CMC evaluation, anyway.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Eduardo Bergamini

INPE/CCSDS  

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

De: CMC [mailto:cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] Em nome de Soula Jean-Marc
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 21 de setembro de 2017 12:43
Para: Afarin, James (HQ-CG000) <james.afarin at nasa.gov <mailto:james.afarin at nasa.gov> >; Nestor.Peccia at esa.int <mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int> ; Oliver, Brian (HQ-CG000)[Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.] <brian.oliver at nasa.gov <mailto:brian.oliver at nasa.gov> >
Cc: CESG-All <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> >; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org> >; CCSDS Management Council(CMC at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:CMC at mailman.ccsds.org> ) <cmc at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cmc at mailman.ccsds.org> >
Assunto: Re: [CMC] [Cesg-all] Results of Recent CMC Polls

Bonjour James and all,

CNES vote had the meaning of “abstain” which, in the old days of the CMC was not meaning “reject”.

Could we be reminded the meaning of “abstain” from the procedures ? 

Should we add a choice for “abstain” in the epolls ? … at least it would be clear the difference between abstain on purpose and unability to vote.

Maybe this deserves a quick discussion tomorrow.

Best regards

Jean-Marc Soula 
CNES – DNO/SA/DA
Deputy Head of Stations networks and Alert systems Department
18 Avenue Edouard Belin 
31401 Toulouse Cedex 9 - France 
Tel.: +33 (0)5 61 2 74647 
Fax.: +33 (0)5 61 2 73993
Email: jean-marc.soula at cnes.fr <mailto:jean-marc.soula at cnes.fr>  
www.cnes.fr <http://www.cnes.fr> 

De : CMC [mailto:cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] De la part de Afarin, James (HQ-CG000)
Envoyé : mercredi 20 septembre 2017 15:26
À : Nestor.Peccia at esa.int <mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int> ; Oliver, Brian (HQ-CG000)[Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.]
Cc : CESG-All; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All; CCSDS Management Council(CMC at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:CMC at mailman.ccsds.org> )
Objet : Re: [CMC] [Cesg-all] Results of Recent CMC Polls

HI Nestor,

Thank you for pointing out that the poll failed.  I think it is very appropriate if there is not enough vote to approve a poll it should fail.  I like to make sure that member agency that did not register their vote were actually disagree with the project and did not forget or were not able to vote.  If any member agency was unable to vote please let me know.

Thank you,

James

Dr. James Afarin 

Space Data Standards Manager 
Space Communications and Navigation Division
Office: 202-358-5221 
Mobile: 202-549-6496

From: CMC <cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> > on behalf of "Nestor.Peccia at esa.int <mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int> " <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int <mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int> >
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 2:28 AM
To: "Oliver, Brian (HQ-CG000)[Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.]" <brian.oliver at nasa.gov <mailto:brian.oliver at nasa.gov> >
Cc: CESG-All <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> >, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org> >, "CCSDS Management Council(CMC at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:CMC at mailman.ccsds.org> )" <cmc at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cmc at mailman.ccsds.org> >
Subject: [CMC] [Cesg-all] Results of Recent CMC Polls

Brian 

According to the Proc & Org YB 
5.3.5.4.4.2 Failure to achieve approval can result from lack of quorum. For CMC polls, votes from more than fifty percent of the members are needed to achieve quorum. 

the following poll has failed and it needs to be reissued 

CMC-P-2017-07-005 Approval of New Project in the SOIS - Onboard Wireless Working Group "High Data Rate Wireless Network Communications" Orange Book 
Results of CMC poll beginning 28 July 2017 and ending 14 August 2017:
Adopt:  5 (100%) (CNSA, CSA, INPE, JAXA, NASA)
Adopt Provisionally:  0 (0%) 
Reject:  0 (0%)
Reject with Comments:  0 (0%)
Results are based on responses from 5 out of 11 members (45.45%).
No response was received from the following Agencies:
ASI 
CNES
ESA 
RFSA 
DLR 
UKSA
Secretariat Interpretation of Results:  Adopted
Resulting CMC Resolution:                CMC-R-2017-09-007
Inferred Secretariat Action:                Approve Project in CWE (Done) 

ciao 
nestor 

From:        "Oliver, Brian (HQ-CG000)[Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.]" <brian.oliver at nasa.gov <mailto:brian.oliver at nasa.gov> > 
To:        "CCSDS Management Council(CMC at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:CMC at mailman.ccsds.org> )" <cmc at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cmc at mailman.ccsds.org> > 
Cc:        CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG All <cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org> > 
Date:        20/09/2017 05:04 
Subject:        [Cesg-all] Results of Recent CMC Polls 
Sent by:        "CESG-All" <cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> > 

  _____  

CMC E-Poll Identifier: CMC-P-2017-08-006 Approval of CMC Minutes June 2017 in St. Petersburg 

Results of CMC poll beginning 31 August 2017 and ending 14 September 2017:

Adopt:  5 (83%) (CNES, CNSA, CSA, NASA, UKSA)
Adopt Provisionally:  1 (17%) (JAXA)
Reject:  0 (0%)
Reject with Comments:  0 (0%)

Results are based on responses from 6 out of 11 members (54.54%).

No response was received from the following Agencies:

ASI
ESA 
INPE 
RFSA 
DLR 

Conditions (JAXA) 

Please correct the minutes as follows,

- Page 17, second paragraph,
(from)  T. Shigeta added that Japan recently created new space related role under which JAXA's role is stated as to support and encourage commercial industries and private institutions for their active participations in space activities.

(to)    T. Shigeta added that Japan recently created new space related low under which JAXA's role is stated as to support and encourage commercial industries and private institutions for their active participations in space activities. 

Secretariat Interpretation of Results:  Adopt Provisionally
Resulting CMC Resolution:                CMC-R-2017-09-005
Inferred Secretariat Action:                Update minutes based on JAXA Provisions. 

CMC-P-2017-07-006 Approval of New Project in the MOIMS - Navigation Working Group "Navigation Events Message" - Blue Book 

Results of CMC poll beginning 28 July 2017 and ending 14 August 2017:

Adopt:  6 (100%) (CNES, CNSA, CSA, INPE, JAXA, NASA)
Adopt Provisionally:  0 (0%) 
Reject:  0 (0%)
Reject with Comments:  0 (0%)

Results are based on responses from 6 out of 11 members (54.54%).

No response was received from the following Agencies:

ASI
ESA 
RFSA 
DLR 
UKSA 

Secretariat Interpretation of Results:  Adopted
Resulting CMC Resolution:                CMC-R-2017-09-006
Inferred Secretariat Action:                Approve Project in CWE (Done) 

CMC-P-2017-07-005 Approval of New Project in the SOIS - Onboard Wireless Working Group "High Data Rate Wireless Network Communications" Orange Book

Results of CMC poll beginning 28 July 2017 and ending 14 August 2017:

Adopt:  5 (100%) (CNSA, CSA, INPE, JAXA, NASA)
Adopt Provisionally:  0 (0%) 
Reject:  0 (0%)
Reject with Comments:  0 (0%)

Results are based on responses from 5 out of 11 members (45.45%).

No response was received from the following Agencies:

ASI 
CNES
ESA 
RFSA 
DLR 
UKSA 

Secretariat Interpretation of Results:  Adopted
Resulting CMC Resolution:                CMC-R-2017-09-007
Inferred Secretariat Action:                Approve Project in CWE (Done) 

_______________________________________________
CESG-All mailing list
CESG-All at mailman.ccsds.org <mailto:CESG-All at mailman.ccsds.org> 
 <https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all> https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all

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/20170922/c684f431/attachment.html>