DNA1.3.1 Review (Diana)

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: DNA1.3.1
Title: DNA1.3.1 - Technical Development Plan Doc. identifier: EMI_DNA1.3.1_draft.docx
Author(s): Balazs Konya Due date: June 2010

Identification of the reviewer
Name: Diana Cresti Affiliation: INFN EMI Activity/External project or Institute: NA2

Review date 17/11/2010
Author(s) revision date 19/11/2010
Reviewer acceptance date 08/12/2010

Reviewed document: v0.14 of DNA1.3.1

General comments

The document in my opinion has the correct content. However I would like to see some more discussion in two areas:
  • The issue of how much focus to put on consolidation vs. new features/prototypes. There are general statements in the text that seem to be later contradicted by the descriptions of the release plans. If there is no contradiction, this is not apparent. Please clarify.
  • The very interesting objective of streamlining EMI. If a product is phased out, effort can be reallocated to addressing requirements that have been de-prioritized by the project, but that may be a high priority for our users.
There are also a few issues of formatting that I commented on in the document.

BK: the general comments are addressed as part of the answers given to specific recommendations below.

Additional recommendations (not affecting the document content, e.g. recommendation for future work)

I would advertise this document very widely within the project. All members - including the NA2 team - should read it.

Detailed comments on the content

Please see my comments in this document:

Page Section Observations and replies Is Addressed?
1 5 Exec summary Have we decided the Executive summary should go before the Introduction?
-- DianaC - 17-Nov-2010

There was no official decision as far as i remember, nevertheless i very much dislike having the Executive summary inside "Introduction" and decided to deviate from the template
-- BalazsKonya - 19-Nov-2010

well, it's not inside the Introduction, it's after, e.g. "1. Introduction", 2."Exec summary". This is not so important; it's ok with others it's ok with me.
-- DianaC - 06-Dec-2010
Yes / Done
2 5 Exec summary I would add a few lines about the convergence strategy (e.g. phase out, merge etc.), referring to the components table in sect 4. This table contains bold decisions that are worth being highlighted here
-- DianaC - 17-Nov-2010

Good point.I extended the Executive summary as suggested and also added reference to the important tables
-- BalazsKonya - 19-Nov-2010
DONE
3 7 Glossary reference I don’t recall this decision being made. The relevant URL does not have any content; are we supposed to add it in?
-- DianaC - 17-Nov-2010

No decision yet, however i'd very much like to see an EMI web glossary
-- BalazsKonya - 19-Nov-2010

ok, we will do that.
-- DianaC - 06-Dec-2010
Yes / Done
4 8 UMD document reference Please fix numbering
-- DianaC - 17-Nov-2010

R2 is pointing to the right reference/document
-- BalazsKonya - 19-Nov-2010

I meant the numbering isn't consecutive
-- DianaC - 06-Dec-2010
Fixed in v0.16
-- BalazsKonya - 08-Dec-2010

Yes / Done
5 8 Requirements section It would be useful to add a few lines on the distinction between UMD and EMI components.
-- DianaC - 17-Nov-2010

I don't think such an explanation of EMI/UMD/EGI really belongs there, nevertheless i added a footnote. I was imagining something more straightforward, such as "the initial requirements influencing the EMI project setup and the EMI DoW had been already provided during the project preparation phase by the UMD Operation and user requirements Working Group [R2], where 'UMD' is the Unified Middleware Distribution used by EGI and possibly other DCIs".
-- BalazsKonya - 19-Nov-2010

The text becomes clearer this way
-- DianaC - 06-Dec-2010
Yes / Done
6 16 High level view What’s the difference between interchangeable and redundant / duplicated?.
-- DianaC - 17-Nov-2010

By interchangeable components i meant compatible components, that can be swapped and the other part of the system keeps working. As an example, consider the different computing elements that have the same interface nevertheless they come with different feature set which means those are interchangeable, i can use any of the CEs with the available clients. This sense the CEs are swappable, interchangeable. The vision is to be able to change, swap EMI components transparently depending on what kind of feature set is needed. So, interchangeable is used as "compatible nevertheless offering different capabilities".
-- BalazsKonya - 19-Nov-2010

I get this, but the average reader might not. The explanation should be in the text
-- DianaC - 06-Dec-2010
v0.16 comes with clarification
-- BalazsKonya - 08-Dec-2010
Yes / Done
7 16 First phase development plan that includes the development of some early prototypes and additional new capabilities This seems to go against the emphasis in the “Evolove” statement on consolidation rather than “producing new prototypal technology.
-- DianaC - 17-Nov-2010

I don't see any contradiction here. There is some new development in EMI, not everything is just consolidation. Furthermore, the consolidation development will also result in prototypes initially (e.g. implementation of an agreed new interface).
-- BalazsKonya - 19-Nov-2010

Again, you don't have to explain to me that there is no contradiction, but to the reader
-- DianaC - 06-Dec-2010
v0.16 comes with clarification
-- BalazsKonya - 08-Dec-2010
Yes / Done
8 16 First phase development plan that includes the development of some early prototypes and additional new capabilities "remaining two areas", "I don’t follow".
-- DianaC - 17-Nov-2010

fixed by explicitly naming those two areas.
-- BalazsKonya - 19-Nov-2010

Ok
-- DianaC - 06-Dec-2010
DONE
9 22 low priority objectives Some of these objectives are fairly high priority for many of our users. Why were they de-prioritized, and how does the project plan to address these? It would be interesting to have a discussion of reallocating effort towards these requirements as a consequence of products being phased out..
-- DianaC - 17-Nov-2010

The decision over the low-priority objectives was taken by the PTB. Some of them got de-prioritized because PTB hopes that other projects (e.g. the new FP7 call) will address them, others because of the lack of available resources or no clear user community request. However, please note these objectives are not canceled, the project management can change their priorities later. Regarding reallocating resources freed due to phase out: those resources are already counted and allocated to some other areas. There are no free, unused resources in the project. If any of the low-priority objectives is considered important, it can only be addressed if some other activity in the project is cancelled at the same time.
-- BalazsKonya - 19-Nov-2010

Same here, these considerations - or a public version of them - should go in the text. I'm also interested in knowing if and how the Technical Plan could address any sustainability recommendations the project may produce
-- DianaC - 06-Dec-2010
v0.16 comes with clarification
-- BalazsKonya - 08-Dec-2010
Yes / Done
Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
Unknown file formatdocx EMI_DNA1.3.1_draft_DMC.docx r1 manage 152.1 K 2010-11-17 - 15:34 DianaC  
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r9 < r8 < r7 < r6 < r5 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r9 - 2010-12-09 - AlbertoDiMeglio
 
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    EMI All webs login

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright &© 2008-2020 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback