SA1 Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: DNA1.3.2
Title: DNA1.3.2 - Technical Development Plan Doc. identifier: EMI-DXXX-CDSREF-Title-vx.x
Author(s): B. Konya Due date: __

Identification of the reviewer
Name: F. Giacomini Affiliation: INFN EMI Activity/External project or Institute: SA1

Review date 2011-05-26
Author(s) revision date 26/05/2011
Reviewer acceptance date mm/dd/yyyy

Reviewed document

General comments

All the review is in the attached word document.

The deliverable is acceptable. The comments are just requests for clarification and suggestions/recommendations for improvements. Some effort should also be devoted to the improvement of the formatting.

-- FrancescoGiacomini - 26-May-2011

BK: I attach a word document where i responded on all your comments. I believe the v0.8 (to be soon uploaded to the deliverable page) addresses all your comments. Concerning the improvement of formatting. What exactly do you have in your mind?

-- FrancescoGiacomini - 03-June-2011

There is no time to go into more depth on some of the issues I've
raised, but I would like to point out a couple of them for the future:

1. Somewhere there should be a description of how the PTB assesses the
priority of a requirement and this has very little to do with the QA
policies prepared by SA2. The fact that you have changed the priority
of the SL6 porting with no further discussion raises some doubts on
the soundness of the current process.

2. To my question: "What is the relationship [of the technical
objectives] with the requirements listed above?" you simply replied
saying that "The new objectives are derived from the requirements.",
which is, I would say, obvious. What I meant is that it must be
possible to justify any single objective with an actual requirement
(from users or from the DoW). Ideally we should be able to trace any
single requirement to the actual changes in the code and viceversa.

-- FrancescoGiacomini - 26-May-2011

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

Detailed comments on the content

Note 1: The reviewers must list here any observation they want to track explicitly and that require interaction with the authors
Alternatively all changes must be listed in the document itself using Word change tracking features (if you use Word)
Note 2: These comments have to be explicitly addressed by the authors and the action taken must be clearly described

N Page Section Observations and Replies Is Addressed?
1 xx x.y Sequence of comments and replies separated by twiki signature and date    

Any other modification, spelling or grammatical corrections, etc must be done directly in the document using tracked changes or similar mechanisms that allows the authors to identify which correction is suggested.

-- FloridaEstrella - 06-May-2011

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
Microsoft Word filedoc EMI_DNA1.3.2_draft-fg-response.doc r1 manage 1003.5 K 2011-05-26 - 18:34 BalazsKonya Author responses embeded in the revised deliverable
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r4 < r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r4 - 2011-06-03 - unknown
    • 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 & 2008-2023 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
or Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? use Discourse or Send feedback