May MOIMS PLENARY –Be careful when connecting your laptop in the meeting rooms Responsibility of WG Chair Cost to be covered by WG chair Cost not covered by OMG and / or ESA –Meeting rooms in 5 th floor will be locked by WG chair (they will get a key) –Meeting room in Mezzanine will not be locked. Everybody is responsible of its own stuff –Only 2 restaurants nearby. Going to Plaka takes 2.5 hours –Meeting participants sign-up list Why ? A lot of meeting (23 on Wednesday), a lot of BOFs, to see if makes sense to have 2 plenaries per year Please do it for each day –Previous resolutions – Are there problems ? –CESG / CMC actions for MOIMS – Still open ?

May MOIMS PLENARY –Area dinner Thursday 14 th April hrs Ouzerie Kouklis Tripodon 14, Plaka

May MOIMS PLENARY –NEW APPROACH FOR WG CHARTER –WG charter will contain a request of resources for next CCSDS fiscal year Request after Spring meeting year=y-1 CMC allocates request in June /July year=y-1 Operating Plan updated before Fall meeting year=y-1 Ops Plan effective –from Fall meeting year=y-1 to Fall meeting year=y –Some guidelines Agency leading production of RB until official review 1FTE Agency implementing prototype 0.5 FTE Agency reviewing outputs 0.1 FTE –CMC wants to monitor progress against agreed resources and schedule –from Fall meeting year=y-1 to Fall meeting year=y

May MOIMS PLENARY DAI WG –OAIS french version will be available on the CCSDS Web Pages –OAIS availability on ISO will be handled by CNES ISO delegate NAV WG –USTAG 14 Liaison should be only that –Comments by CNES on charter update Schedule extended More work with same resources SMC –OMG relationship to be discussed

May MOIMS Discussion Threads Are you happy with the new CCSDS organisation (Areas, WGs, BoFs etc) ? NO (supported by some MOIMS members) System Engineering Area scope is broader than necessary No way to deal with small things like Pink Pages without creating a BoF or modifying a WG charter Too much energy is going into stress caused by the reorganized system Not clear on overlap and technical scope, to know what the interfaces are. Ownership of documents after WG’s work is finished ? Difficulty in getting the agencies to commit level of resources. WG dynamicity might adversely affect continuity of resources What changes, if any would you propose Make SEA a Working Group under the CESG and its current WGs should be redistributed BoF system is not sufficiently similar to IETF type of BoF i.e. there should be a requirement to publish a concept paper on a public Web site WGs should have rather wider charters (in particular DAI and IPR are very narrow), to enable better formal continuity of WGs Area Directors should have discretion to approve small pieces of work on current standards

May MOIMS Discussion Threads Are you happy with the new CCSDS Procedures –NO – see above. Evolution of Procedures lacks input and review from those doing the work. The working procedures should be in a single document The restructuring document should be a historical report Procedures not always clear CCSDS docshare + mailing list could be improved Simplification to suppress multiple copy –Standards Track, Non standards track, Administrative Reference Models should be clearly recognized as standards. Other types of standards should be allowed as per ISO Hierarchy of Standards documents should be defined e.g. showing which standards derived from which Reference Models “Best Practice” should not be a standard – it should be advice. Definition of “Best Practice” needs revision. Requirement to do implementation tests may result in wasting of resources, if agencies will not accept the standard. –Document review and approval Requirement to use XML for navigation is an example of a WG not having flexibility to decide what is a current best practice in its technical field. T. Ganett Can help

May MOIMS Discussion Threads Secretariat services –NO – Web and document services are inadequate –There was a recent failure of the CCSDS web site, which lasted 2 days or more. Backup equipment is the usual way. SANA –Needs to be driven by well defined requirements, not acronym mapping –Nav WG provided comments a long time ago. Why such slow progress? Industry program –Needs to be defined and/or made visible What changes, if any, would you propose –See above, –To prevent ad-hoc/hidden revisions to the Procedures, proposed changes should be reviewed by WGs and WG RIDS on these supplied to CESG / CMC –Minority reports on CESG decisions should be sent to CMC along with the majority CESG report. –CESG should not be allowed to reopen issues decided by CMC unless requested by CMC –Results of all voting should be visible

May MOIMS Discussion Threads Are you happy with the trend towards centralized meetings ? –1-week Areas, WGs, BOFS NO: perhaps 1 all-hands meeting a year, but 2nd meeting each year should be area defined Having everyone together makes for easy interfacing. –1+ day CESG Don’t care –CMC and ISO sometime later OK –Tied to OMG in 2005 No need to do this for most areas / WGs What changes, if any, would you propose Are you happy with the proposed external technical/organizational relationships: –To the OMG Yes, but where are they? What is the OMG relation to space data systems? OMG does not develop standards based on consensus. Are their processes similar to CCSDS’s ? ? ?

May MOIMS Discussion Threads Proposed merger of SC13 and SC14 into a new ISO “TC for Space” –Need more details – implications are unclear IOAG –OK for limited parts of CCSDS scope Mars Program Other? –ISO TC/211 –International Virtual Observatory Alliance –Global Grid Forum –W3C What changes, if any, would you propose –Liaison to a group should publish a detailed report on each meeting attended, open to all CCSDS members. ?