Notes from Megameeting 20th April 2009


BarbaraSierman Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Netherlands
BruceAmbacher UM
DavidGiaretta STFC
HelenTibbo UNC
JohnGarrett GSFC
KatiaThomaz INPE
RobertDowns CIESIN, Columbia University
MarieWaltz CRL
MarkConrad NARA


There was discussion of thw Word document produced at Colorado Springs. The document was intended to be of the right form to submit to CCSDS - but some corrections to the wording is still needed.

The Security annex was discussed but noted that it referred to the security implications of the results of the audit e.g. confidentiality of the info about the repository collected by the audit, rather than the security of the repository holdings. The security annex is Informative, not Normative.

The comments and proposed changes in the Word document e.g use of "shall" will be reviewed by the editor of each section and the changes sent to David for inclusion in a Master Word docuemnt which he will release Wednesday. Note that did all the "funnies" were not caught in the editing session at Colorado Springs.

The test audits were also briefly discussed - see the plans from the discussion at the face to face meeting. At Colorado Springs an on-line form was drafted - see - which was intended to make the collection of information about the test audits easier and more uniform. A review of this was requested. It is intended that someone filling in the questions can come back to it many times - just filling in the repository name and his/her name and wether internal or external the same each time - and answering the questions about whichever metric they have information. All the information about a repository can be collected together at the end of the process. All the test auditors will have access to the collected information.

Actions (see transcript for details):

  • ALL to amend the metrics in their sections - see proposed changes in the Word document as a start - note these are intended to be small changes - by tomorrow (28 April 2009)
    • send David the clean changed sections as Word preferably
  • MarieWaltz to amend discussion/examples in A. (by tomorrow 28 April 2009)
  • DavidGiaretta to put integrated Word document on the Wiki as the new master version (by 29 April 2009)
  • ALL to look at the on-line form for the test audits (it is in the form of a surveymonkey survey) and suggest any additions/deletions
    • at the moment it has only 1 metric in it - if/when the questions about the metric are agreed then David will add the other metrics with the same set of questions. Note that each metric will be included with its sub-metrics otherwise the form will be tooooo long.

Transcript of chat

David Giaretta >> (All): test
David Giaretta >> (All): test
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Hello, David. 
David Giaretta >> (All): Hi Helen
Helen Tibbo >> (All): David, you're breaking up on my end
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi all
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yup -  I can hear you Bruce, but not David
Barbara Sierman >> (All): hello
David Giaretta >> (All): Hi Barbara
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I can hear Bob and Bruce
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - I must have missed the email - I'll take a look
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, I will forward it to you
David Giaretta >> (All): I think there may be some opportunities
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The BCR is doing some TRAC training
Barbara Sierman >> (All): what is BCR?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): OK and I'm not hearing David at all but everyone else...
David Giaretta >> (All): I've cancelled a network backup on my machine - that may help my audio
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David is much clearer
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Barbara it grew out of a Rocky Mountain area digitization cooperative
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yup,  I'm hearing David now
BruceAmbacher >> (All): much better
KatiaThomaz >> (All): hello everybody
Helen Tibbo >> (All): What is the BCR?
David Giaretta >> (All): Hi Katia
Mark Conrad >> (All): David your audio is breaking up.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Yes, I can no longer hear you.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): same in my case
David Giaretta >> (All): I'll type
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I found the numbering hieerarchy then the current A1 or B2 or C1 very confusing.  Will that remain of will the A-B-C go away?
David Giaretta >> (All): At COl Springs:
David Giaretta >> (All): 1) boiler plate for the document including CCSDS demands for "Security Annex"
David Giaretta >> (All): 2) form of the metrics - use of "shall"
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hello everyone. 
David Giaretta >> (All): Hi John
marie  >> (All): Bruce the numbering is the format they want and the metrics have to start with section 3, despite it being a little confusing for some.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): hi John
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We should move then to just the numbering hierarchy.
David Giaretta >> (All): Marie - yes, but at the moment I left in the "old" numbering
David Giaretta >> (All): So I guess one question is whether the re-statement of the metrics is OK
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Perhaps put "TRAC A1.1", etc, in brackets at end of requirement.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - except that the metrics no longer map 1-1 with TRAC
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Has anyone done a scrub in the various sections of text for "must" and replaced it with "shall"?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): May be a refenrce table at the end?
David Giaretta >> (All): I think we can leave the old numbers in for now so we don't et confused but we will need to remove them just before publication
marie  >> (All): I did this this mornign when I fixed section A
David Giaretta >> (All): Another question is whether to stick to Word now 
David Giaretta >> (All): But I'll try to put the Word changes into the WIki IF people agree with them
Helen Tibbo >> (All): When this becomes the standard I would imagine it will supersede TRAC so perhaps the numbers are not so important as time goes on... 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We are reaching a point when tighter control of the text is necessary to be sure only the approved changes get in.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, elaborate on the VVSDS demand for a security annex
David Giaretta >> (All): The CCSDS publications manual requires all CCSDS standards to have something in to address security implications.
David Giaretta >> (All): It makes more sense for communications protocols of course
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Why doesn't section C address that to their satisfaction?
David Giaretta >> (All): But we thought we'd better stick to the rules.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - that was my first try but the CCSDS editor thought we needed a a separate section
David Giaretta >> (All): Marie and John were there also I think during the conversations
BruceAmbacher >> (All): That's the rub - someone who has not played a role in developing the standard saying what must be there when we had lengthy disucssions of what aspects of security to include.
marie  >> (All): it was my understanding that the security was to address the security of the audit, rather than the repository
David Giaretta >> (All): The good thing was that the editor thought taht out style of "Supporting Text" etc would be OK - no need to change to "NOTE:"
BruceAmbacher >> (All): explain that please
David Giaretta >> (All): Marie - yes that was it
BruceAmbacher >> (All): What is security of the audit?
JohnGarrett >> (All): The CCSDS required Security section in the document doesn't address security of the archive directly.  It is a required section with required subsections that addresses security if this standard is used.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - so for example what about security of the audit report
Mark Conrad >> (All): What does that mean?
David Giaretta >> (All): it confidential
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Isn't that set out in the suditor's standard/guidelines?
David Giaretta >> (All): The security annex (not a part of the standard i.e. Informative not Normative) is fairly bland
Mark Conrad >> (All): Is this about "security" or "transparency"?
marie  >> (All): Information you gather in the audit has security issues and the auditor and certifying body need to be careful with it. This is set out in the auditor's guidelines but this section is not in every CCSDS document. 
marie  >> (All): It is about being transparent about your security.
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - we were just jumping through the required hoops - since it did not affect the metrics
Barbara Sierman >> (All): that would sound like confidentiality
Barbara Sierman >> (All): not so much security
David Giaretta >> (All): Actually I think the idea was just to prove that we had thought about the various possible security implications
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We certainly have discussed that point of keeping system security aspects confidential
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes - we mostly interpretaed that as related to confidentiality
BruceAmbacher >> (All): we adhere to ISO 27000 for IT security aspects
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Will a summary of the audit requirements without any text be an annex?
David Giaretta >> (All): I think Marie put it correctly - are there security aspects when the standard is used. Not security of the repository
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - the bare metrics as an annex - not sure - we could but someone had said that this might encourage people to ignore the supporting text
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Proper use of the standard should increase repoaitory security
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I asked because we did it in the TRAC version released.
RobertDowns >> (All): Are we referring to the security of the documents submitted or auditors or to the auditor's report that is provided to the repository?
RobertDowns >> (All): correction: documents submitted to auditors or to the auditor's report that is provided to the repository?
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - but this was not about repository- it is about security implications of doing the auditory 
David Giaretta >> (All): IAgain - this security annex is just to prove to CCSDS that we did think about these things - they do not change the metrics
BruceAmbacher >> (All): What I think I am hearing is for us to address in an annex how implementing TRAC will affect system security/data security if it is used.  I would think the answer is that it will enhance security through controls and enhanced awareness.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, I don't think that is what they are saying.
JohnGarrett >> (All): The security section and the subsections are now a requirement of CCSDS and we really can't vary from that if pass this through CCSDS. It is not a normative part of the CCSDS standard.  But it is required so users of the standard can see what the security implications of using the standard.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Of course, if the report is not kept secure then it could lay the repository bare as it could contain details of all their operations. Perhaps that is the point.
David Giaretta >> (All): Anyway - let's see if that Annex is found satisfactory by CCSDS
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Does this annex lat us put in a summary list of the requirements that will enhance security?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): or is sit a fixed biolerplate?
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - sure we can add things, but I don't think it is really necessary
BruceAmbacher >> (All): (some day I will learn to type)
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think what they are saying is you have to make sure that any information supplied to or from the auditors that might compromise the security of the repository have to be secured so this does not happen.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - there were a list of questions - the headings of the annex - which we needed to prove we had thought about
RobertDowns >> (All): Mark - that makes sense
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Thats's easy - get auditors to inspect but not write down anything on security and provide a summary of their findings without naming gaps/breaches
David Giaretta >> (All): Mostly I think we just said that the audit information confidentiality is to be agreed between the auditor and repository
JohnGarrett >> (All): It is fixed boilerplate as far as sections, but we can put in text.  But it is not about security of the repository.  It is about security if someone uses this standard (and the focus for most CCSDS standards is using the standard on a spacecraft so that is focus of the required subsections)
Mark Conrad >> (All): Where can we find the text of this annex?
marie  >> (All): Yes this is about national security and thiking ahead about the implications of the standard itself
David Giaretta >> (All): mark it's at the end of the Word file
David Giaretta >> (All): page
David Giaretta >> (All): Returning to the text I think that there are some things I omitted...
David Giaretta >> (All): 1) Marie provided some comemnts in Word which need to be added
David Giaretta >> (All): 2) there were some changes to the WIki which need to be put into the Word version
marie  >> (All): Yes, I also fixed section A, but now see Barbara also had some suggestions, so I'll put those in and then resend these sections?
David Giaretta >> (All): Marie - OK
David Giaretta >> (All): But we need to decide on whether to keep the Wiki up to date or whether we switch to Word now
David Giaretta >> (All): The reason I ask is because there were a large number of formatting issues getting into Word 
Mark Conrad >> (All): First we need a single document with the current text and all of the outstanding comments.
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - OK I can prepare that
Mark Conrad >> (All): Then we can decide how further comments are to be added and vetted.
David Giaretta >> (All): Then people can accept all changes before editing the Word file
David Giaretta >> (All): we can easily see who changed what - discuss and agree - before merging
David Giaretta >> (All): SO I see ACTION: DG: produce Word document with all edits and comemnts
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, No! You will have chaos if individuals are accepting changes.
David Giaretta >> (All): I meant that if people edit the doc to  propose new edits they need to acccept the changes before making their edits and then upload the file with a new name e.g. add their initials to the filename
David Giaretta >> (All):'s just easier to see who changed what
David Giaretta >> (All): ...then we agree on a master merged changes version
Mark Conrad >> (All): I would suggest having the current text with all outstanding comments on the wiki and then having you incorporate accepted (vetted) changes into the wORD DOCUMENT.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Yes, one editor works best
Mark Conrad >> (All): The Word document becomes the "record" copy.
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree with the single editor approach at this point.
David Giaretta >> (All): OK - perhaps people can put the edits from "their" sections into the WIki from the Word version and we start from there keeping things synchronised
David Giaretta >> (All): But first we need to agree on those changes to the wording - the "shall" etc
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I agree - a single editor deciding on whether to make suggested changes and a single person doing all changes to a controlled document.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): we have a lot of  "must" in the word document
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Isn't "shall"
David Giaretta >> (All): ...that's why I was suggesting the ones responsible for each section do the changes to the Wiki
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Isn't "shall" mandated?  Don't we only have to read the changed requirements and accept/modify the language?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Or is there still changes that must be made in the text (supporting text, examples, discussion)?
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - yes I think so - but we did more that simply insert "shall" in some cases.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - I don't think we changes anything other than the metrics
marie  >> (All): We didn't, that's why there are so many musts.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): and the "musts" must become "shall"
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
David Giaretta >> (All): Only in the metrics
David Giaretta >> (All): The supporting text is informative so we can use looser language
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ah, the metrics being the bold requirements only (A1, A1.1 etc,)
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
David Giaretta >> (All): Also I think there are some metrics we did not catch - because they were worded in a non-uniform way
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Sould each person go through the section they were assigned before?
marie  >> (All): I think that would be a good idea.
David Giaretta >> (All): e.g. I just see "Repository monitors..." in the Word file
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Do we pull out the A1, B2 etc now?
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes, that is what I meant - each person looks at his/her section and updates the Wiki
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - that may cause some confusion if we do it now and then see a duplicate metrics - as Claude pointed out
David Giaretta >> (All): let's leave the A1.1 etc in the text and we can remove them at the end
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
RobertDowns >> (All): Leaving the letters in for now might help to reduce confusion
David Giaretta >> (All): B esides the text we needed to organise the test audits
JohnGarrett >> (All): From CCSDS Pubs manual, "the words "shall" and "must" imply  a binding and verifiable specification;"
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, Then why did we have to change must to shall?
David Giaretta >> (All): John - perhaps we were too hasty in removing the "musts"
David Giaretta >> (All): ...but there were a number of othe
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Which is "stronger" in ISO language?
JohnGarrett >> (All): As David said, we were just trying to be consistent with the information we had at the time.
David Giaretta >> (All): ...a number of other constructs - neither "must" nor "shall"
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think they are both allowed and mean the same in ISO also, but I will try to check.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Before everyone hastily leaves the chat at 12, what exactly is everyone supposed to do? What specific document shoudl each person start from? Which wiki document should they post into? What specifically are they supposed to be looking for/cleaning up?
marie  >> (All): Also, are we going to talk about scheduling of the test audits?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Thank you, Mark. I am very confused. Just give me something specific to do.
David Giaretta >> (All): I suggest that people look the the proposed changes marked up in the Word document for the metrics
Mark Conrad >> (All): Which Word document?
David Giaretta >> (All): ...and then changes the WIki for their sections if they agree with the wording
Mark Conrad >> (All): Which Wiki page?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): Nomenclature. The nomenclature subsection shall identify linguistic usages that apply in the document. For standards track documents, boilerplate text shall be placed in this subsection:“The following conventions apply throughout this Recommended Standard:a) the words ‘shall’ and ‘must’ imply a binding and verifiable specification;b) the word ‘should’ implies an optional, but desirable, specification;c) the word ‘may’ implies an optional specification;d) the words ‘is’, ‘are’, and ‘will’ imply statements of fact.”
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I see my assignment as working with B2 from the document David posted, changing/accepting the changes made, checking for other  vague language that might be changed but holding off on any renumbering.
David Giaretta >> (All): The word doc at
marie  >> (All): Thansk Katia
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia - where is that from?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): David, is this word document more up to date then the wiki?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): CCSDS Publications Manual
RobertDowns >> (All): If the words "must" and "shall" ae being used interchangably, perhaps we should stick to 'shall" for consistency.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Which wiki page are they supposed to past into?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Sorry, paste.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): robert, i think so
David Giaretta >> (All): Barbara there have been a couple of changes by Bruce and Marie to the WIki since I took the smnapshot
JohnGarrett >> (All): I went and checked ISO and it requires shall instead of must
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Would it be better to send changed text to David as a word document>
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - fine by me - I'll just paste the text you send me into Word
David Giaretta >> (All): ...but we have a problem about consistency with the Wiki. I must confess that I'd like to move to Word 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I am seeking some control over the text so you can be sure what is the latest revision.
David Giaretta >> (All): will be a pain trying to keep them in sync
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - I think it will work if people send me extracts of the Word document - as Word - for me to paste into a master version.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): In the wiki you can see the changes that were made to the documents (in my case B3) but we did not discuss them so I don't know whether they are accepted. You can't see this in the word document
Barbara Sierman >> (All): B4.3 sorry
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Can we hold off wiki modification until the word document is finalized.
David Giaretta >> (All): Good idea Bruce
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I thought all text had been accepted online or at CCSDS meeting
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Ok I was not aware of that
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, am I correct?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): So the new word document ending with 4a is the final starting point
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes - there were some comments that we need to discuss but the Wiki text was essentially agrred
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Can we cover those in the next 20 minutes?
Mark Conrad >> (All): So what are we doing?
David Giaretta >> (All): Barbara - let me have an hour or so to include the last comments from Marie and Bruce and you and then take that as a start
JohnGarrett >> (All): I suggest that we assume the changes were accepted, but are not final yet.  If anyone here wants to discuss them, just bring up the item you want to discuss.  But let's assume they are accepted until someone brings up an issue.
Mark Conrad >> (All): When is it due?
David Giaretta >> (All): John - yes - 
Mark Conrad >> (All): What are we doing? When are action items due?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): OK David, you will make a new Word version with the latest changes and a new name! and that will be our starting point
David Giaretta >> (All): mark - I was hoping that we could essentially finalise the metrics and supporting text immediately after this meeting +1 day
David Giaretta >> (All): Thete will still be some small corrections but we take this as the basis for the test audits
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I see action items as 1. Those people with reqriting assignments will now redo their sections. 2. Others will read entire document and offer comments/revisions
Mark Conrad >> (All): By tomorrow?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Who has a re-writing assignment?
marie  >> (All): ME
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Helen you are responsible for the C section you edited.
David Giaretta >> (All): It;'s difficult to type fast enough!
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I can get B2 done by tomorrow.
David Giaretta >> (All): Great
marie  >> (All): Me too
David Giaretta >> (All): IThen I'll release a Word version with all changes and outstanding comemnts in as the Master version
RobertDowns >> (All): So, we will send our comments to David?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Are the rest of us supposed to comment on the document as it currently stands or are we supposed to wait until the re-writing is done?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): David, where is the most recent document?
David Giaretta >> (All): Either send me things in Word or else edit the Wiki - which ever is easier
David Giaretta >> (All): The lastest Word doc is
David Giaretta >> (All): ...I thoiught Word might be easier since the Wiki is sometimes slow
Mark Conrad >> (All): Are the rest of us supposed to comment on the document as it currently stands or are we supposed to wait until the re-writing is done?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): Mark, waiting until the re-writing is done is better
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes, Best to wait
Mark Conrad >> (All): Then I cannot get comments back by tomorrow.
David Giaretta >> (All): ...less confusion#
Mark Conrad >> (All): because the document to comment on won't be ready until tomorrow.
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Marie and I will get our sections done by tomorrow.  What do the others day about their time frames?
RobertDowns >> (All): I will review my section by tomorrow.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): I don't see suggested changes in B3 on the wiki 
Barbara Sierman >> (All): so I don't think I need to change things
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I don't see any changes suggested for section C except the "shall" wording.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, when all sections are done and new word doc is ready, please send us an email
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes - the changes were small in many cases
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes - will do
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Barbara, are you looking in the word doc just cited above?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): folks, i must quit now. have a great job. bye.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bye katia
marie  >> (All): Bye Katia
RobertDowns >> (All): Bye Katia
Barbara Sierman >> (All): yes Bruce, have done that already
David Giaretta >> (All): Before everyone goes - it looks as if the text actions are clear - note that we at COl Springs may not have caught all the funnies in the metrics
BruceAmbacher >> (All): In one part of B3 under discussion it says "See discussion for B3.2"  Is that ok?
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - good point - as I say, we did not catch everything
David Giaretta >> (All): So B3.2 become 4.3.2 I guess
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Should the text repeat the other discussion? or say see B3.2?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): I see, I'll have a look at it, but I think it was because the text was exactly the same
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I though both numbering sets stayed for now?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): I'm not in favor of repeating exaxtly the same texts
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - OK I guess we can catch all the references to B etc
David Giaretta >> (All): ..later
David Giaretta >> (All): Barbara - yes I agree
David Giaretta >> (All): But I'd also like to make sure people start thinking about the test audits
Barbara Sierman >> (All): I'll will finish B3/4.3 tomorrow
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Can we then put the two together as sub-requiremnts with a single text?
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - yes I think we did that in several places
David Giaretta >> (All): ...i,
David Giaretta >> (All): ...i.e. had sub-metrics immediately following each other followed by some text supporting both
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Sorry I need to go, I'll read the rest on the wiki! Bye
David Giaretta >> (All): About the test audits...
marie  >> (All): Bye Barbara
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Reagan and I are doing the one here at UNC after 5/15.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Something is screwy about 4.3.1 (B3.1)
David Giaretta >> (All): ....please also take a look at the survey - we hoped it would make life easier during the test audits - but please check before I add all the other metrics
marie  >> (All): OK
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - what?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, what do you mean by "survey"? where is it?
marie  >> (All): Bye All
David Giaretta >> (All): In addition, we thought it would be useful to provide something to help people capture the results of their test audits. An initial draft with questions for a single metric is available at: The idea would be for the the internal people to complete the survey and then the external people to complete a similar survey - linked by the name of the repository. Most of the questions will be optional and we would all be able to see the results.
David Giaretta >> (All): The idea was that people can go back to fill in additional details - and as long as the same repository name was used we could combine all the info
David Giaretta >> (All): The question in my email was whether people thought this woiuld be useful and if so what changes e.g. list of repository types might be added
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Is the test audit process controlled?  Who will be the test audit sites?  When?  Who will be the auditors?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I do not understand the purpose of the survey.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - we had a list at the face to face meeting in Wshington
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I will check the minutes
David Giaretta >> (All): The survey was to try to make life easy for people and also make it easier to intercompare results from different test audits
David Giaretta >> (All): ..Otherwise people could just suggest changes to wording of metrics as normal
Mark Conrad >> (All): Have another meeting. Bye.
David Giaretta >> (All): ..we just thought that the CNES report was quite lengthy and so an on-line form might make life easier
David Giaretta >> (All): Bye Mark
David Giaretta >> (All): Then there were four
David Giaretta >> (All): ..oops five
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Isn't the current CNES report frozen in time and largely suspended
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I also will leave now.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I need to go as well. Talk with you next week.
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK, I;ll see you all later.  Bye.
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes, but I was just referring to the effort they put in capturing the information. They will be redoing the report with the finalised wording
David Giaretta >> (All): Bye
RobertDowns >> (All): I will see you all later. Bye
David Giaretta >> (All): Bye all
Topic revision: r1 - 2009-04-27 - DavidGiaretta
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback