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

[Nestor.Peccia at esa.int]

Adrian,

Please find attached a consolidated MOIMS set of comments.

I have considered all the comments received from MOIMS members (I added "to be
discussed" in those I believed a further discussion is needed). I think that
some of them can help us in the ops processes'improvement.

ciao
nestor
================================

   It should be made clear that
   The Concept Paper in Process I and Process S are actually the same. In the
   SM&C WG, we call this WB. Is this wrong? What is a WB?
   It should be clarified (maybe it is somewhere) that the "CCSDS PROPOSED
   STANDARD" is basically a request to start standardisation on a given topic
   including justification and resource requirements needed to do the work (what
   I foresee is very similar the the request to establish a new WG). Is there a
   template for such requests?

   Do we need an Administrative "A" Process also (CCSDS Operating Procedures,
   Strategy, Publication Guidelines all should be reviewed and approved)

   It is assumed that definitions (e.g. hard requirement vs. prospective
   requirement mission deployment, experimental deployment, decommitted
   deployment) are elsewhere. These definitions are needed to ensure that we
   don't get caught in wrong process.

   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.

   Idea of Historic is fine, but don't renumber documents with xxx.x-H-x
   number.We need a persistent ID to track documents and we don't want to have
   several IDs for same doc. 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   for each superseded Blue and Red.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.

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

   To be discussed : 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
   Formal Agency Reviews should be probably 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 "H"
   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.

   To be discussed "B" Process and "S" Process should likely be the same or at
   least closer to each other.

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

   Slide 3:
   - What do the blue ">"s signify?
   - Not clear what the "Standards" and "Non-standards" track labels are
   pointing to a "hard requirement"  {with a blue arrow going the other way!} to
   become a "draft standard". Seems confusing!

   Slide 5: Since this slide does not have some of the links shown in Slide 3,
   which governs and why have both?