[Moims-ipr] Re: [Moims-dai] Re: [CESG] MOIMS Area Worshop No 1: Plenary
and Management Report
John Garrett
moims-ipr@mailman.ccsds.org
Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:36:41 -0400
Hi,
I've provided a couple of comments in-line below on the issues.
Cheers,
-JOhn
At 06:51 PM 10/14/2003 +0100, Nestor.Peccia@esa.int wrote:
>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?
There's already a What's New in the top banner. Perhaps an entry there
could take you to a BOF Proposals page where links or charters of all
active BOFs would be displayed. I think we need to have a page where all
active BOFs are listed for the entire six months to year+ while they
exist. Assuming that each Area creates only one or two new BOFs each
meeting, we would always have a list of a half dozen to two dozen active
BOFs. We want all of these to be constantly available to management users
who might be interested in any of the areas and might supply
RESOURCES. Obviously, even ten or dozen entries are too many to appear
constantly on the front page. But we do want all active projects to appear
somewhere consistent so we can advertise and generate interest.
> 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?
SANA should operate like ISO and W3C do where there is a centralized point
like IANA where you would go as a starting point but like those
organizations, the actual registries are assigned to a reasonable
organization(s) to handle the actual registration. IANA doesn't assign
domain names or IP numbers, it has a set of distributed registrars
(Verisign, et al) that further distribute the functions to registered
organizations to assign host name and IP numbers to individual
machines. ISO doesn't directly assign unique identifiers to
organizations, I believe the BSI handles that.
SANA should be the cognizant point that knows how and where the various
CCSDS registries are handled. I think whoever is doing the actual
Secretariat work would be a logical entity to provide the top level SANA
support. An alternative could be for the World Data Center to perform that
duty since they are already set up to support the world-wide Space Community.
> 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?
I think some updates here would be good. First we can probably hide the
collections from the pre-reorganization CCSDS organization. That would
remove some of the complexity.
I think some of the complexity is due to the larger number of groups
(Areas, WGs, and BOFs) that we support since the reorganization. This is
to some extent unavoidable since each group needs its own area unless some
of the WGs can share folders, which might be possible. Are there any
suggestions on what WGs could share a single folder?
I gave a couple of presentations during the MOIMS meetings to describe the
structure. I think that helped. It didn't eliminate the large number of
groups, but perhaps made them more understandable and helped people focus
on areas where they had an interest.
Another education piece is some additional education about Docushare
use. I suspect that JPL personnel are doing better with this since they
are used to using Docushare. Others will need to be taught that a single
document can appear in more than 1 location. Users do not need to create a
copy of documents to put in there own folders, they can just add their
folder as another location where their document appears.
>Best regards
>Adrian
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Moims-dai mailing list
>Moims-dai@mailman.ccsds.org
>http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai