NA2 Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: D1.3.3
Title: DNA1.3.3 - Technical Development Plan (M23) Doc. identifier: EMI-DXXX-CDSREF-Title-vx.x
Author(s): B. Konya Due date: 31/03/2012

Identification of the reviewer
Name: D. Cresti Affiliation: INFN EMI Activity/External project or Institute: NA3

Review date 16/05/2012
Author(s) revision date mm/dd/yyyy
Reviewer acceptance date mm/dd/yyyy

Attach the reviewed document to the deliverable page, put here a link

General comments

  • In general, this document does not give a clear high-level view of how the development plan has evolved from it's two previous incarnations. There are some important changes discussed in section 4.1, which are buried among tables of data. There is also very little explicit presentation of the EMI vision in terms of the technical objectives. Here a few lines on the new vision objectives established a few months ago would be good.

  • 21/05 Balazs: As it is stated in the executive summary, this version of the tech plan is an update, not an extension of the previous ones. My goal was to update all the data, tables that the previous version contained. This is project working document in the sense that the tables carry the relevant important informations and that data must be up-to-date. Actually, my very first idea was to simple take a snapshot of the EMI dev tracker and PT tables and submit those as the deliverable (this i turned down . Regarding the changes of the dev plan, i'd point your attention to Section 4.2 that i believe gives a summary of the changes (especially the 2nd paragraph). Regarding the presentation of the changes of the EMI vision due to new requirements this i'd say is captured in the updated Section 4.1 for the Monte Bianco release. The paragraph "During the third, final phase.." has been largely rewritten and needless to say all the changes that were made in the workplan is the result of new requirements. to summarize: for me the criticized tables constitute the real value of this deliverable.

  • This document is the right place to show at a high level how the EMI development plan has responded to user feedback and requirements. One or two suggestive examples would help.

  • 21/05 Balazs: The addition of the new objectives in the objective table and the entire requirements table with the "endorsed" requirements supposed to show exactly this. These tables contain lots of examples, i don't think any additional text should be added.

  • The text in section 3 can be improved, to better highlight important evolutions and wherever possible the rationale for the decisions made.

  • 21/05 Balazs: Section 3 is the "products and PTs" section. Unfortunately (or fortunately?, there was not much evolution with respect to EMI products. I don't really understand this general comment (i'll see and respond in the doc file for every specific note)

  • Within the sections of the document, I would include a brief text highlighting all important aspects of the tables presented - changes in particular, and where possible a line on the motivations for these changes.

  • 21/05 Balazs: I believe the introductory texts preceding the tables (e.g. Section 4.2 text before the objectives) already do this.
  • See also comments in the attached file.

  • 21/05 Balazs: See my comments on your comments in the attached file. Smaller corrections were directly accepted in my "master" document v0.7

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 - 03-May-2012

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
Microsoft Word filedoc EMI_DNA1.3.3_DMC.doc r1 manage 870.5 K 2012-05-16 - 16:05 DianaC Diana's review of DNA1.3.3
Microsoft Word filedoc EMI_DNA1.3.3_DMC_balazs_response.doc r1 manage 741.0 K 2012-05-21 - 10:55 UnknownUser  
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r3 - 2012-05-21 - 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 & 2008-2021 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