[MOIMS] RID template in excel format - for comments

Wed Feb 7 11:44:55 UTC 2018

Dear Margherita,

please find below the comments from MOIMS. Since I am sure there will be 
the need for at least another iteration, I did not bother consolidating 
the comments.

Comments from MOIMS
MOIMS-1. General: Not clear what the difference is between the sheet "
Agency or Org" and the one "Consolidated Comments", they seem to be 
identical.

MOIMS-2. Sheet "General Instructions" Item 5: I do not understand it. I 
assume this describes the work to be done by the "Agency/Organization RID 
Coordinator" of item 4. It is irrelevant to prescribe how the review is 
conducted internally to an agency. The bottom line is that any agency has 
to provide a consolidated list of valid RIDs.

MOIMS-3. I assume that the WG will go through all received RIDs and 
dispose all of them. To do this, the WG will assign a disposition status 
in the column "J" by using the short definitions in the General 
Instructions sheet (this will allow sorting/searching for RIDs with a 
given status). Please note that the terminology used is confusing. For 
instance "Concur: Reviewer agrees with the recommended change or overall 
evaluation" should read "Concur: WG agrees with the recommended change or 
overall evaluation". The WG will use column "K" to comment or specify the 
proposed implementation for that particular RID. Please improved the 
General Instructions.

MOIMS-4. Once the WG has disposed all RIDs, it is a requirement of the 
CCSDS that the dispositions are agreed by the originating RID author. 
Please add 2 new columns with a flag (Agreed/Not Agreed) and an associated 
comment.

Comments from MOIMS/NAV
NAV-1. I think doing RIDs via spreadsheet (like this) will be inefficient 
and error prone, however, implementation of the method will be fast, 
flexible, and inexpensive compared to an online application.

NAV-2. I assume that doing RIDs via this vehicle will replace ALL other 
current methods (there are 3: online tool, MS Word doc, ASCII doc). 
Replacing the old methods with a single standard vehicle for collecting 
comments will be good, and fitting for a standards organization.

NAV-3. At the top of the two worksheets for RIDs (i.e., not the 
instructions), there are lines for "RID TITLE" and "RID SHORT TITLE". 
These are meaningless for a form that by default has spaces for 50 RIDs. I 
think these two fields can therefore be removed. 

NAV-4. The "Review Team Disposition" in the two worksheets for RIDs should 
be filled in by a pull down selector to facilitate ease-of-use and ensure 
consistency. 

NAV-5. Instruction #3 refers to a "General Comments" column... but there 
is no such column. I suspect this is supposed to be "Supporting Analysis" 
(?).

NAV-6. I think the instructions for "Duplicate" are not clear, and I also 
think that this categorization is not necessary. The agencies that submit 
RIDs via this form will not have access to the forms filed by other 
agencies, so would not have a context to understand the identification of 
"the Consolidated Comment # (Column H) of the dispositioned comment in the 
Rationale Column". Since this operation will already be heavily oriented 
towards copy/paste, the Disposition ("Concur...", "Non-Concur", "Not 
Applicable", and "Defer"), and the Rationale for the Disposition can be 
copied from the form for Agency #1 to the forms for Agency #2...#N.

NAV-7. The Overall Review Coordinator could have difficulty processing the 
RIDs because spreadsheets are infinitely flexible, and it seems very 
likely that different agencies might introduce local modifications to the 
sheets that could make them hard to consolidate. We've already seen such 
things with the WG report Powerpoint templates.

Comments from MOIMS/SM&C
Agency or Org Tab.
SM&C-1. No need for RID Title and RID Short Title in header area.

SM&C-2. Need to add a RID Title as a column used for each RID.

SM&C-3. Should also allow for the submittal of a full document with track 
changes turned on for cases where there is a very thorough review.

SM&C-4. Editorial, Technical, General are the choices for Category.  In 
the instructions it changes to Technical Fact, Recommended, or Editorial 
and it is called Comment Type.  Why the difference?

Consolidated Tab.
SM&C-5. Same comments as above, plus . . .

SM&C-6. If three different Agencies each submit ten RIDs, won?t there be 
10 #1?s, 10 #2?s, etc.?  Need a column on the far left for 
Agency/Organization.  So we can have RID numbers like NASA-1, ESA-1, 
ESA-2, etc.

General Instructions 
SM&C-7. Keep it simple.  I don?t need to be told to work left to right 
starting at the top.

Comments from MOIMS/DAI
Presumably the idea is that an Agency or Organisation (I?ll use Agency 
below for brevity) collects RIDS in a spreadsheet like the one labelled 
?Agency or Org? and these are reviewed by an Agency Review Team which 
produces a spreadsheet of Agency Consolidated RIDs like the one labelled 
?Consolidated Comments?.  All the ?Consolidated Comments? spreadsheets 
from the Agencies are collected by the WG and the WG Review Team makes 
responses to the originator (copied to the Agency team) and proposes 
dispositions. Our experience is that there is likely to be some 
negotiation and eventually a disposition is agreed (e.g. 
http://review.oais.info/show_bug.cgi?id=21).

DAI-1. It seems to me that the spreadsheets are more a summary mechanism 
rather than the mechanism for reaching consensus ? if that is correct then 
that is probably OK. But there are a number of things missing if it to act 
as a mechanism to pass information from an Agency to a WG.

DAI-2. Contact details must be provided so that the WG Review Team can 
negotiate with the originator of the RID (or whoever produced the 
consolidated RID).

DAI-3. The numbering of the RIDs should be distinct e.g. adding Agency 
abbreviation

DAI-4. It should be possible to add attachments, which could be done by 
putting in URLs ? but should there be a standard place to put them?

DAI-5. Suggest a column ?Rationale for the requested change?.  Not the 
same as ?Supporting Analysis? which should probably be retained as support 
to the rationale.  Rationale should be required, supporting analysis 
should be optional. 

DAI-6. Instructions (definitions) say Technical/Recommended/Editorial, but 
the spreadsheet pull-down says Editorial/Technical/General.  Which is it? 

DAI-7. ?Organization? should be a pull-down that lists all agencies and 
centers (just like the registration system), PLUS one blank for people to 
fill in an ?other? organization.  Here?s a tip. 

DAI-8. The definitions need significant clarifications/re-writes. 

DAI-9. There should be a place to indicate that the originator of the RID 
agrees with the disposition.  DAI uses Concur to indicate that the 
originator of the RID agrees with the final disposition (e.g. 
http://review.oais.info/show_bug.cgi?id=24). By the way, I thought that 
the Technical Editor needed to see some proof that consensus had been 
reached.

DAI-10. Something that we had an issue with previously was that much of 
the discussion normally occurred in an email trail which is not visible. 
It is a pity that CCSDS cannot support an on-line system ? I think several 
WGs use systems based on Bugzilla. That would certainly enable us to make 
discussions more visible. Also using spreadsheets seems to involve a great 
deal of manual copy/paste.

DAI-11. It might make life easier if a check is done to ensure some level 
of compatibility with an ISO review system which avoids lots of 
copy/pasting.

Regards,

__Mario
----- Forwarded by Mario Merri/esoc/ESA on 05/02/2018 17:30 -----

From:   Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int
To:     cesg at mailman.ccsds.org
Date:   31/01/2018 14:58
Subject:        [CESG] Fw: RID template in excel format - for comments
Sent by:        "CESG" <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>

Dear All, 
last week I issued my first e-mail to the CESG members and... I  took a 
wrong distribution list. 
I am now resending that e-mail, hoping to use the right list this time. 

It;'s about a  RID Template that has been requested by CMC at the last 
meeting in Darmstadt, and which has been prototyped by David. 
Please see further details in the attached e-mail. 

Please address that with your WGs, and let me have your comments, if any, 
by 5th February. I will then be able to report on that at the CMC Telecon 
on 7th February. 

Thanks, and kind regards,
Margherita 

--------------------------------------------------------------
Margherita di Giulio 
Data Systems Infrastructure Division (OPS-GI)

European Space Agency ESA/ESOC
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5
D-64293 Darmstadt - Germany
Tel: +49-6151-902779
e-mail: Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int

----- Forwarded by Margherita di Giulio/esoc/ESA on 31-01-18 14:43 ----- 

From:        Margherita di Giulio/esoc/ESA 
To:        CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> 
Date:        26-01-18 14:57 
Subject:        RID template in excel format - for comments 

Dear All, 
at the last CMC Meeting it has been proposed to change the RID template to 
an excell format. This would provide  the possibility to filter according 
to some criteria, e.g.  by section, or by author, etc. 
David has produced such template, which the CESG shall evaluate and 
comment. 
Please take a look and let me have your comments by 5th February c.o.b. 
I will then report on  this topic at the CMC telecon . 

Note: in the table,  one RID shall be entered per row, starting at  row 6 
of the excell. 
Rows 4 and 5 of the table presently contain   the  "RID title ", "RID 
Short Title", the "Review Date" and the "Disposition Date"  . However , 
this will be changed -  such that every row ( that is, every RID) will 
have its own Title, short Title, Review Date and Disposition Date - by 
means of  additional columns. 
This is a known issue, so please do not comment on that. . 

Kind regards,
Margherita 

------------------------------------------------------
Margherita di Giulio 
Data Systems Infrastructure Division (OPS-GI)

European Space Agency ESA/ESOC
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5
D-64293 Darmstadt - Germany
Tel: +49-6151-902779
e-mail: Margherita.di.Giulio at esa.int

This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee 
or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in 
whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete 
it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the 
sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

_______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg

This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims/attachments/20180207/bf1e9318/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RID Evaluation Form.xlsx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 31558 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims/attachments/20180207/bf1e9318/attachment.obj>