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

Berry, David S (3920) david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov
Sun Jul 26 12:57:26 UTC 2015 

Dave:

Here's my suggestion.

1.  Your point has been stated, but its substance goes well beyond the
scope of the CCSDS Navigation WG and is not within my purview to resolve.

2.  Pursuant to #1, please remove the moims-nav-exec mail list from the
thread (i.e., if you continue the thread, do not "reply all").

3.  Since your issues are not within my power to resolve, I don't need to
be on copy on further correspondence on this matter either.  If the
powers-that-be determine any violations, I'm sure they will let me know in
due course.

4A.  Wait for a response from Nick/Hillary.

4B.  Alternatively (or perhaps additionally), address your concerns to
Eduardo Bergamini, ISO/TC20/SC13 Chair; James Afarin, ISO/TC20/SC13
Secretary; and Andrew Dryden ( dryden at iso.org ), ISO Central Secretariat
contact for ISO/TC20/SC13.

Regards,
David  




On 7/25/15, 8:02 PM, "SkySentry" <finklemand at skysentry.net> wrote:

>Yes, I did.  My comment about "tentative" commitments demonstrates that
>at least.  There are violations of ISO rules.
>
>There are real issues that the Secretariat must address.   The issues
>exist, as I have said, when CCSDS actions are elevated to ISO
>consideration.  
>
>Your guidelines are consistent with CCSDS practice but not ISO practice.
>If the intent is promotion to full international standards, there are
>inconsistencies.   If the guidelines are qualified to apply only to CCSDS
>unique work that is not intended to become either normative or
>informative ISO publication there are no issues.
>
> If the intent is that they eventually be ISO documents, there are
>additional guidelines and requirements.  For example, exhaustive study of
>relevant prior publications and internal consistency with those
>publications is mandatory, not just desirable.
>
>I note as well that all CCSDS WG members are affiliated with and
>appointed to support space agency positions.  Others are observers or
>liaisons without the right to affect decisions officially.  The SC13
>development and participation in SC13 cannot be only under the auspices
>of space agencies.  This is ISO doctrine and normative requirement, as
>the Secretariat must verify.
>
>Please do not apologize in my behalf.  These matters have long been
>raised to the attention of the Secretariat, ANSI, and ISO.   They must be
>resolved in order to preserve the integrity and credibility of
>International Standards.  Only ISO has authority to confirm and publish
>International Standards.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Dave Finkleman
>
>Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jul 25, 2015, at 8:08 PM, Berry, David S (3920)
>><david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Dave:
>> 
>> Did you even read my guidelines?  It's not apparent to me from the
>> tangential nature of this thread.  And I'm not asking you about CCSDS
>> violations... I know there are none.  I'm asking YOU about violations of
>> ISO rules in my guidelines, since that seems to be your concern.  If
>>there
>> are none, then this conversation can end now.
>> 
>> Nick, Hilary:  apologies for all the traffic (the traffic I think is not
>> warranted).
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> David
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 7/25/15, 1:21 PM, "SkySentry" <finklemand at skysentry.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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
>>

More information about the MOIMS-NAV-EXEC mailing list