Notes from Megameeting 22nd March 2010

Attendees

BruceAmbacher UM
HelenTibbo UNC
JohnGarrett GSFC
MarkConrad NARA
RobertDowns CIESIN, Columbia University
SimonLambert STFC
TerryLongstreth  

Summary

The starting point of the discussion was the version of the "Requirements for Bodies ..." document edited by DavidGiaretta following the decisions of last week's discussion - at http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/ReqtsForAuditors/AuditorGuidelines-CCSDS-format-3.doc. It was agreed that this was an accurate reflection of those decisions. A few issues were still noted, however:

  • Section 1.7.2 "Terminology" still need to be fixed.
  • The use of terms "TDR", "candidate TDR/repository", etc., should be carefully checked.
  • The references to the main metrics document should reference the CCSDS version.
  • Penultimate paragraph of 2.1: a better wording was agreed to be: "Section 9 deals with the process of the audits, how certification is awarded and how complaints are handled."
  • Section 5.2.1 needs attention: the numbering is out of step, and there is some concern that it directly contradicts ISO 17021.
  • Little attention has yet been paid to section 9 onwards.

Actions

  • All to review the above version of the document and indicate any outstanding issues, and also for the final sections (9 onwards).

BruceAmbacher >> (All): Does anyone have any concerns with the marked up text 
through section 8?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Where should we begin?
SimonLambert >> (All): So David incorporated the decisions from last week into 
the "Requitements for Bodies" doc
SimonLambert >> (All): Named as AuditorGuidelines-CCSDS-format-3.doc on the wiki
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, I am looking through them now.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I scanned that part and I am satisfied it incorporated 
our discussion.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Welcome Mark.  Did you get a chance to look at what we 
did last week as incorporated in David's posting?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hello! Sorry I am late stcuk on the phone.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I have not had a chance to look at the document yet. I was 
on the road all last week and I am leaving for Chapel Hill for the rest of this 
week.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Remind me again, whose comments you were reviewing?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Yours and terry's.
TerryLongstreth >> (All): Since I missed the last session, was there any 
feedback on my stuff?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We need Mark's and Terry's feedback on the revised 
sections through 8 as posted.
RobertDowns >> (All): Looking through the document, it seems to reflect our 
discussion of last week.
JohnGarrett >> (All): And if they agree with the our feedback on those sections, 
everyone needs to go through the next sections which I don't think have had much 
review yet.  I know there are at least a couple of references to sections of the 
RAC metrics that need to be fixed
Mark Conrad >> (All): 1.7.2. still needs to be fixed.
TerryLongstreth >> (All): Has anyone noticed if references to the RAC document 
are all consistent? Should we start using something more definitive?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Thost that we still need we should keep and we should just 
make the references consistent.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I thought we agreed to a careful search and replace of 
Candidate Digital Repository for TDR?  That should be incorporated.
TerryLongstreth >> (All): For instance, since this and RAC are initially CCSDS 
books, could we use the CCSDS nomenclature instead of "ISO XXXXX..."
JohnGarrett >> (All): Do you have concerns about any specific references?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, since this starts as a CCSDS Standard, we normally 
reference the CCSDS Standard.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, 1.7.2. still says that TDR can apply to certified 
repositories or candidate repositories.
Mark Conrad >> (All): See the last paragraph.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Then when it is made into an ISO Standard, there is a page 
of updates that say the CCSDS Standard XXX.X is equivalent to ISO XXXXX
BruceAmbacher >> (All): That was supposed to be clarified.  TDR can only apply 
to a certified repository, not a candidate.
SimonLambert >> (All): Maybe we should review the doc from section 9.2.1 (new 
numbering) which is where the comments seem to end.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I still do not understand the last paragraph on page 2-1.
Mark Conrad >> (All): The requirements? in the procedures?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, this should be active voice and start with Section 
9 contains the procedures for . . .
JohnGarrett >> (All): Sorry Mark, are you talking about the sentence  
JohnGarrett >> (All): The management of the auditing body itself is specified in 
Section 10"  That seems clear to me.
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, Sorry. I am talking about the next to last 
paragraph: The requirements in the procedures for defining the scope and 
performance of the audit, the initial certification decision and the ways in 
which that certification may be confirmed,  reduced in scope, suspended or 
withdrawn are given in section 9. This section also specified how complaints are 
dealt with.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So Bruce, the word requirements would not show up in the 
revised text?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I would drop it.  This is only an overview of what each 
section deals with, not the requirements/criteria themselves.
JohnGarrett >> (All): How about "Section 9 deals with the process of the audits, 
how certification is awarded and how complaints are handled."
RobertDowns >> (All): John's proposed wording seems much more clear to me.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): That's ok with me.  It is only an overview of the 
sections.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Something like, Section 9 lists the procedures for 
defining the scope and performance of the audit, the initial certification 
decision and the ways in which that certification may be confirmed,  reduced in 
scope, suspended or withdrawn.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Either John's or Mark's is fine.
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree that either of these would be fine.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Mark's suggestion is acceptable to me also, so either one.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I just used procedures - as opposed to process -  because 
that was what was in the original text.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I chose processes since that is the title of the section
Mark Conrad >> (All): Pick one. Either is fine with me.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Me, too.  Does anyone else have a preference?
TerryLongstreth >> (All): No one else willing to commit? Pick John's
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Lets go with John's.  It is less details, less specific.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Sounds like either one is acceptable.  Who will be 
capturing results today?  They can pick one and add it in
TerryLongstreth >> (All): We were about to get a groundswell for your version
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK.
SimonLambert >> (All): I can extract the decisions from the chat transcript.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Simon, do you know David made any attempt to do the 
global replacement for TDR?
SimonLambert >> (All): I don't know - but where care is needed is whether each 
appearance is qualified as "candidate", I think.
JohnGarrett >> (All): It seems to me that he did try to do so.  There are a lot 
of candidate repository
JohnGarrett >> (All):  that he added this past week.  Looks like he may have 
started tho at Section 2.
Mark Conrad >> (All): The next section I have questions about is 5.2.1.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, can that be pointed out as a necessity to the 
technical editor?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, and your questions are?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, We will have to make the decisions about when TDR 
or candidate repository is appropriate.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Sure, we could do that.  I would be more comfortable if we 
made the decisions about when we mean TDR and when we mean candidate now that we 
are making the distinction.
Mark Conrad >> (All): My questions at 5.2.1. are manifold. The first is what 
happened to the numbering?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): OK.  Just trying to determine how careful we have to be 
and what can be picked up by an editor.
Mark Conrad >> (All): More substantively, I am not sure why this section is 
here. There seem to be some conflicts between this text and 17021.
SimonLambert >> (All): Mark - wasn't this text carried over from 27006?  So if 
there are conflicts, 27006 would have them too.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Numbering or lettering?  We deleted some clauses with 
5.2.1.  5.2.1 represents an extension of 17021.
JohnGarrett >> (All): We made a lot of changes in this section.  It is likely 
the numbering got screwed up in the changes David made.  
TerryLongstreth >> (All): I think the editor was trying to distinguish between 
17021 numbering and incumbent sections
JohnGarrett >> (All): This section is "clarifying" what impartiality requirement 
are.  If anything here contradicts 17021 (even if 27006) had it, we should take 
it out or make it very clear it is an exception to 17021 that everyone else 
follows.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Yes. 5.2.1 extends 17021, section 5.2
Mark Conrad >> (All): 5.2.6 The certification body and any part of the same 
legal entity shall not offer or provide internal audits to its certified 
clients. The certification body shall not certify a management system on which 
it provided internalaudits within two years following the end of the internal 
audits. This also applies to that part of governmentidentified as the 
certification body.
Mark Conrad >> (All): That's from 17021.
Mark Conrad >> (All): 5.2.5 The certification body and any part of the same 
legal entity shall not offer or provide managementsystem consultancy. This also 
applies to that part of government identified as the certification body.
JohnGarrett >> (All): We intended to take out or clarify language that allowed 
the body to do internal audits.
JohnGarrett >> (All): At least that was my take from last week.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, What document are you referring to?  Is it the one 
David sent yesterday?  I do not see 5.2.6 in our current draft.
Mark Conrad >> (All): 17021
Mark Conrad >> (All): 5.2.7 The certification body shall not certify a 
management system on which a client has received management system consultancy 
or internal audits, where the relationship between the consultancy organization 
and the certification body poses an unacceptable threat to the impartiality of 
the certification body.NOTE 1 Allowing a minimum period of two years to elapse 
following the end of the management system consultancy is one way of reducing 
the threat to impartiality to an acceptable level.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, All of this is coming from 17021. It seems to 
contradict what 5.2.1. in our document says.
Mark Conrad >> (All): What is the upside of leaving 5.2.1. in our document?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Folks, as I recall we discussed this last week and decided
we cannot contradict 17021 in writing but would allow the audit body to 
extend timeframes, etc. as part of the audit report and the decision on the 
audit.  Am I correct?
TerryLongstreth >> (All): upside: minimize the number of independent auditing 
experts required?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Does anyone remember if 5.2.1(d) was going to be updated 
more.  I thought it was going to be broken up and the second half made a 
separate item or deleted.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, What is at 5.2.1. now contradicts in writing parts 
of 17021.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Ah, the problems of using chat and relying on someone to 
capture it unfolds.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Mark, sorry, I didn't think the activities here were 
contradicting 17021.  I don't think any of these things listed are "internal 
audits"
JohnGarrett >> (All): Well, chat isn't perfect, but that's why we circulate the 
update.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Unfortunately, I must sign off early today to keep an 
appointment.  
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK,  maybe we should wrap up soon here anyway and everyone 
review and send in comments for next week.  Mark, will you make it next week to 
the megameeting or will you still be traveling?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I'm listening in but afraid that in the absence of a 
transcript my memory of last week's discussion is mostly absent, although we 
seemed to be working through a lot of things.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I will be traveling.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I should be here next week.
RobertDowns >> (All): I also will be traveling.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think last week was very productive and David got the 
vast majority of the updates.  And many thanks to Mark's comments to guide the 
discussions.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So what are the action items for next week?
SimonLambert >> (All): OK - so we review the latest version and indicate any 
outstanding issues, and also for the final section (9 onwards)
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok.
Mark Conrad >> (All): See you next week.
RobertDowns >> (All): Bye
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Bye
SimonLambert >> (All): bye everyone

-- SimonLambert - 22 Mar 2010

Topic revision: r1 - 2010-03-22 - SimonLambert
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2018 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback