[MOIMS] [CESG] Overview of CCSDS Working Group Operating Processes

[John Garrett]

Hi,

I'm just sending comments now.  Perhaps we can update the charts later.


I think there is need for Administrative "A" Process also.
         CCSDS Operating Procedures, Strategy, Publication Guidelines all 
should be reviewed
         and approved.

I'm assuming definitions of some things are elsewhere
These definitions are needed to ensure that we don't get caught in wrong 
process
         e.g. hard requirement vs. prospective requirement
                 mission deployment, experimental deployment, decommitted 
deployment

Some chartsmanship needed to show which track things are on.
         Is Experimental Recommendation on Non-Standards Track?
         Is Best Current Practice on Standards Track?
         If there are two tracks, may just need 2 processes?
         And maybe just Standards and Informational documents.

I think idea of Historic is fine, but don't renumber documents with 
xxx.x-H-x number.
         Need a persistent ID to track documents and we don't want to have 
several IDs for same.
         Also if we renumber, then we really should do it for each 
superseded Blue and Red.
         Do Informational and Experimental documents move to Historic or 
only Standard track?

Shouldn't Experimental track also involve Draft versions?  (5th chart)
         I don't understand why we think an Experimental version will 
spring forth perfected but none    of the others would.

In general need to add appeal process when AD does not approve a new BOF.
         Should be able to appeal to MC (perhaps with CESG Recommendation 
for approval or not)

Thoughout, CESG should not be approving things, the CESG should be making a 
technical Recommendation to the CMC who is responsible for management and 
approving things.
         Change CESG approves to CESG Recommendation in each chart where it 
appears.


Draft WG Charter appears twice in Process W Chart.
         Make second one Final Draft WG Charter

Process "E"
         Draft version shown here, update earlier chart that showed 
Experimental not having drafts.
         Is there any value in a formal agency review for Experimental?
         Not for chart, but what is criteria for approval of an Experimental?
                 Certainly everyone shouldn't need to think it is the right 
way to go.

Process "S"
         Serious problems with this chart
         I'm assuming Proposed Std=White Book, Draft Standard=Red Book
         Formal Agency Review shown as review of white book, it is misplaced
         Also no Formal Agency Review shown for Red Book
         I think Formal Agency Reviews should be shown along main path,
                 not as something that sort of hangs off CMC approval.
                 Should show after CMC approval, Formal reviews should only 
occur after CMC.
         Should show possibility of Experimental coming in as a Proposed 
Standard (w/ approvals)

Process "W"
         Is is really necessary to set  up a WG to move something to 
Historic status?


No where do we show process for handling 5 year reviews of all active 
publications.

"E" Process and "I" Process are the same.
"B" Process and "S" Process should likely be the same or at least closer to 
each other.

Perhaps "A" Process (for administrative policy, strategy, etc documents) 
should be similar to "E" and "I" Process


At 05:38 PM 4/28/2004 +0200, Nestor.Peccia at esa.int wrote:
>I would like to receive your comments asap
>ciao
>nestor
>----- Forwarded by Nestor Peccia/esoc/ESA on 28/04/2004 17:37 -----
>|--------+------------------------------>
>|        |          "Adrian J. Hooke"   |
>|        |          <adrian.j.hooke at jpl.|
>|        |          nasa.gov>           |
>|        |          Sent by:            |
>|        |          cesg-bounces at mailman|
>|        |          .ccsds.org          |
>|        |                              |
>|        |                              |
>|        |          27/04/2004 18:08    |
>|        |                              |
>|--------+------------------------------>
> 
>  >----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>   | 
>       |
>   |       To:     CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - 
> ADs                       |
>   |       <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org> 
>       |
>   |       cc:     CCSDS Document Rapporteur 
> <Stephen.Harris at btas.com>          |
>   |       Subject:     [CESG] Overview of CCSDS Working Group 
> Operating        |
>   |       Processes 
>       |
> 
>  >----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
>
>
>ADs and DADs:
>
>Pleased review and comment on the attached document (in both PDF and PPT 
>format)
>entitled "Overview of CCSDS Working Group Operating Processes". As noted on
>slide 2, its intended purpose is:
>
>1. To define, in flow-chart format:
>      a. The common process by which all CCSDS technical work gets started:
>           PROCESS W:      WORKING GROUP CHARTERING
>
>      b. The individual processes by which the following CCSDS documents get
>      initiated, reviewed and published:
>           PROCESS E:      EXPERIMENTAL
>           PROCESS B:      BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP)
>           PROCESS I:      INFORMATIONAL
>           PROCESS S:      RECOMMENDED STANDARD
>           PROCESS H:      HISTORIC
>
>2. To secure CESG agreement on the above processes and to recommend that 
>they be
>formalized as a new Annex to  "CCSDS A02.1-Y-2,  Restructured Organization and
>Processes for the CCSDS".
>
>Best regards
>Adrian(See attached file: d3-CESGProcess-27Apr04.ppt)
>_______________________________________________
>CESG mailing list
>CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
>http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>MOIMS mailing list
>MOIMS at mailman.ccsds.org
>http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims