[MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] CCSDS Nav WG Document Guidelines

[SkySentry]

As far as I know, there are no CCSDS rule violations.  CCSDS has its own long standing rules.  Issues arise when CCSDS recommended standards or even informational documents pass to SC13 for ISO consideration.  Changing just a cover sheet may not be sufficient.   The Secretariat will confirm that a work item developed solely by space agencies and their affiliates does not satisfy mandatory ISO balance among interests or absence of controlling interests.  Nor does a TAG with voting influence from a dominant cohort satisfy ISO requirements.  The ODM is perhaps a unique example of balance as ISO requires it.  

Dave



Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 25, 2015, at 3:13 PM, Berry, David S (3920) <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dave:
> 
> Your inclusion of the Secretariat personnel in this discussion implies to
> me that you think my little set of "good citizen" guidelines for the
> navigation WG violates CCSDS (and by extension, ISO) rules. I don't think
> there are any official violations in my document.  If you think there are,
> please tell me what violates the rules.  If there are no rule violations
> in there (and I don't think there are), then inclusion of the Secretariat
> is irrelevant.
> 
> Best,
> David
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 7/25/15, 11:12 AM, "SkySentry" <finklemand at skysentry.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, they do.  They are the keepers of the rules. It is their
>> responsibility to reject ISO work items that do not comply with the
>> stated requirements.  No judgement required.  A straightforward
>> administrative responsibility and duty.  It is much easier to cast work
>> within the ISO requirements than to resist or make excuses.  I did it for
>> ODM's.  These are not idealistic, arbitrary, or opinionated.
>> 
>> These disciplines are the foundation for the credibility of ISO
>> publications.  If the rules are ignored, the credibility is lost, and
>> there is no value in seeking status as international standards.
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>>> On Jul 25, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Berry, David S (3920)
>>> <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dave:
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your comments... but please understand that the subject
>>> document consists almost entirely of "should" statements, and I would
>>> classify it primarily as "good citizen guidelines" for the Nav WG.
>>> There
>>> is no attempt to set or circumvent policy for CCSDS and/or ISO.  That's
>>> why it is clearly labeled as "unofficial"... there are plenty of
>>> official
>>> documents.
>>> 
>>> I honestly don't think the Secretariat folk need to be part of this
>>> discussion.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> David
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 7/24/15, 7:00 PM, "SkySentry" <finklemand at skysentry.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.  Most CCSDS recommended standards seek elevation to ISO
>>>> documents, generally ISO Standards under SC13.  This levies additional
>>>> requirements dictated in ISO Directives 1 and 2.
>>>> 
>>>> Some of these requirements are summarized below.
>>>> 
>>>> 1.  A delegation vote for approval at the earliest stage is a firm
>>>> commitment to contribute actively throughout.  It is neither
>>>> discretionary or tentative.
>>>> 
>>>> 2.  Documents such as Green a Books that contain mainly guidance or
>>>> informative material must be ISO Technical Reports.  They cannot be ISO
>>>> standards.
>>>> 
>>>> 3.  Contributors to work items that are intended to become ISO
>>>> standards
>>>> MUST
>>>>  A.  Serve to contribute their technical expertise only.  They cannot
>>>> represent their institutions or employers, and they must serve
>>>> INTERNATIONALLY, not representing their nations or delegations.
>>>>  B.  Cannot include proprietary, patented, or institutionally unique
>>>> information, processes, or procedures.  International and national
>>>> authorities have ruled that this constitutes "restraint of trade."
>>>> 
>>>> 4.  Terminology must be consistent with approved ISO terms and
>>>> definitions.  Terms in diverse standards must be internally consistent
>>>> with each other.  There cannot be more than one definition for a term
>>>> nor
>>>> can there be more than one term associated with a definition.
>>>> 
>>>> 5.  Contributors to each work item must be balanced among industry,
>>>> academia, and government.  There can be no dominant interests.
>>>> 
>>>> All of this and more is codified in ISO and ANSI directives and
>>>> normative
>>>> documents for which confirmation is readily available to all.
>>>> 
>>>> If these are not met during CCSDS work, the documents and content  must
>>>> be adjusted to meet ISO requirements before advancing to normative
>>>> international standards.  These are ISO rules, not opinions or
>>>> inferences.  It has always been so.
>>>> 
>>>> Dave Finkleman
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 24, 2015, at 11:58 PM, Berry, David S (3920)
>>>>> <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> All:
>>>>> 
>>>>> You may recall that I got an action item at London to write some
>>>>> document
>>>>> guidelines (I think this was Alain's idea).  We briefly talked over a
>>>>> draft at Pasadena and I had another action item to do some updates.
>>>>> I've
>>>>> attached a small set of guidelines that seem reasonable (to me).
>>>>> Please
>>>>> feel free to mark up the document or otherwise comment (suggest
>>>>> additions,
>>>>> suggest deletions, suggest re-wording, etc.).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Change tracking is "on" in the document, so I'll be able to easily
>>>>> find
>>>>> your suggestions (if any).
>>>>> 
>>>>> No rush... if you can respond before our next telecon that should be
>>>>> fine...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>> David
>>>>> 
>>>>> <navwg-guidelines-draft3.docx>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> MOIMS-NAV-EXEC mailing list
>>>>> MOIMS-NAV-EXEC at mailman.ccsds.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-nav-exec
>>> 
>