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: F. Estrella Affiliation: CERN EMI Activity/External project or Institute: NA1

Review date mm/dd/yyyy
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

  • Document organization: is there a reason for the current order requirements->products->objectives. If we do requirements->objectives->products would that break the flow? (See document comment#3)

21/05 Balazs: Yes, it is legacy from DNA1.3.1 and 1.3.2 where the objectives table still had the related Products listed, therefore those products had to be defined earlier. Changing the order of the two sections might be possible but then please make sure it is done consistently and every reference is updated (e.g. document organization section updated, so on). I think it is just too much work for little improvement. (document #3 in my office is something completely unrelated)

  • Missing overall year 2 assessment wrt plan implementation (Y2 requirements, Y2 objectives). Should include how the tech plans have been followed or evolved (status report); what has changed since the last report and the rationale behind these changes.

21/05 Balazs: this would be a major extension and modification. I don't think i have time for such a non-trivial change.

  • Would it be possible to include correlation with project-level objectives.

21/05 Balazs: Yes, it would be possible if only i had time for that.

  • What was the conclusion of the Friday discussion on the “discontinued” objectives.

21/05 Balazs: Regarding the "discontinued" discussion, i am confused. Alberto insisted that the two cloud implementations objectives (Data area and compute area) are actually achieved. This i still don't see how (especially that we don't even have a cloud strategy document, the one that was produced by Na3 is not a strategy). Then, if i would change the discontinued to "achieved" then all the area deliverables should do the same and even worse, would have to explain how it was achieved. This i don't see happening in the remaining negative amount of time. Who would communicate all this to the area leaders?

For the other discontinued objectives i believe the "discontinued" is a correct term since those activities (objectives) will not be continued in Y3 and have not delivered the original plans. For me, discontinued means exactly that: the work stops at the current stage.

  • From DNA132 EC review "This document shows how Cloud computing has already had an impact on the technical development planning. The consortium should justify how such decisions were made." Please make sure how Cloud computing has been addressed in Y2 and plans in Y3, and justifications for these decisions, are included.

21/05 Balazs: Cloud is simply cancelled in Y3. My strategy wrt cloud was not to talk about, trying not even mentioning it in the DNA1.3.3. Please don't ask me to write about cloud. I can't do that.


22/05 Florida:

It is unfortunate this deliverable could not be revised to include what I consider essential content of an overall technical plan guiding project developments. For the record, the following were not fully addressed:

1. Missing overall year 2 assessment wrt plan implementation (Y2 requirements, Y2 objectives). Should include how the tech plans have been followed or evolved (status report); what has changed since the last report and the rationale behind these changes.
2. Missing rationale behind Y3 plans, goal, prioritization, requirements addressed.
2. Correlation with project-level objectives.
3. From DNA132 EC review "This document shows how Cloud computing has already had an impact on the technical development planning. The consortium should justify how such decisions were made." Please make sure how Cloud computing has been addressed in Y2 and plans in Y3, and justifications for these decisions, are included.

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

Page Section Observations and Replies Is Addressed?
1 xx x.y Sequence of comments and replies separated by twiki signature and date    
2          
3          
4          

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 - 15-May-2012

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
Microsoft Word filedoc EMI_DNA1.3.3_draft-FE.doc r1 manage 726.0 K 2012-05-15 - 09:12 UnknownUser  
Microsoft Word filedoc EMI_DNA1.3.3_draft-FE_balazs_response.doc r1 manage 731.5 K 2012-05-21 - 11:08 UnknownUser  
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r3 - 2012-05-22 - 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 &© 2008-2020 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback