[Moims-ipr] Re: [CESG] MOIMS Area Worshop No 1: Plenary and Management Report

[moims-ipr@mailman.ccsds.org]

FYI
===========================================
Adrian,

my response below

Action MOIMS-01-04: Closed. AD will create BOF at its discretion
Action MOIMS-01-05: Open. I agree with your proposal.
Action MOIMS-01-11: Closed
Action MOIMS-01-06: Open.  I agree with your proposal.
Action MOIMS-01-08: Open. ESA has a very good Web based system that perhaps we
can use for free.
Action MOIMS-01-15: Open. I agree with your proposal.


ciao
nestor

----- Forwarded by Nestor Peccia/esoc/ESA on 14/10/2003 18:48 -----
|--------+----------------------------->
|        |          "Adrian J. Hooke"  |
|        |          <adrian.j.hooke@jpl|
|        |          .nasa.gov>         |
|        |          Sent by:           |
|        |          cesg-admin@mailman.|
|        |          ccsds.org          |
|        |                             |
|        |                             |
|        |          14/10/2003 17:10   |
|        |                             |
|--------+----------------------------->
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                           |
  |       To:     "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - ADs"                    |
  |       <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org>                                            |
  |       cc:                                                                 |
  |       Subject:     Re: [CESG] MOIMS Area Worshop No 1: Plenary and        |
  |       Management  Report                                                  |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------|




Nestor: thanks for the report. I went through it and extracted the following
items/issues that I think we can discuss via e-mail ahead of the CESG meeting:

     Creation of BOFs to be simplified;  BOF creation takes a long time and it
     is not worth;  Creation of BOF should be at Area level discretion;

I really don't understand this cluster of issues. The only requirements for
forming a BOF are that (a) it has to have a charter that is approved by the
cognizant AD and (b) its work must be focused on defining a charter for a WG.
The point is that BOFs aren't supposed to *do*  the technical work; they are
supposed to develop the technical consensus that the work is important enough to
warrant forming a WG. So the creation of BOFs *is* at the Area-level discretion
and the complexity of the procedures is consequently an Area-level issue. So why
is this a CESG issue?

     Creation of WG should be at CESG level;

Right, that's the way it is; so again - why is this a CESG issue?

     Lack of Advertisement of BOFs (Web site). How can a BOF be advertised?

This is a good point and I propose to ask the CMC to instruct the Secretariat to
expand the navigation bar to the left at http://ccsds.org to include a "What's
New and Hot" heading with the opportunity to have sub-links like "BOF forming to
study x,y,z". Any counter-opinions?

     When a WG is dissolved after having fulfilled its tasks (e.g. Standard),
     and in case the standard needs improvement: Is
     there a CESG procedure how to proceed or does the AD decide himself? Who is
     monitoring future needs and future work, as
     WGs go out of business?

That is the job of the CESG, which is the only "standing" technical committee in
CCSDS. You 12 Area Directors and Deputies, moderated by your obedient and humble
servant the Chairman, are supposed to be the leading technical experts in your
field. It's the job of the "Magnificent Thirteen" to constantly scan the horizon
for new requirements and to bring future work proposals to fruition.

     status of SANA unit not clear,

I agree; this is getting to be a serious problem that requires CMC attention. I
propose to notify the CMC that it either needs to take the initiative and set up
the SANA, or provide the resources to the CESG to assume this role (possibly as
an adjunct to the Systems Engineering Area). Any counter-opinions?

     need of a transparent CCSDS RID processing system

I agree. I propose to ask the CMC to instruct the Secretariat to make a proposal
for a fully automated system, and perhaps initiate a testbed that can be used on
an experimental basis to refine its operation. Any counter-opinions?

     Docu-share: Different version of docs in different locations, improve
     direct access to docs.

A major part of this problem is the almost incomprehensible structure of the
site. Just go to http://ccsds.org/docu/dscgi/ds.py/Index/Site and try to figure
out where anything is stored. I propose to ask the CMC to instruct the
Secretariat to fix this problem as soon as possible. Any counter-opinions?

Best regards
Adrian