SA1 Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: D4.3.2
Title: DSA2.3.2 - Periodic QA Reports Doc. identifier: EMI-DXXX-CDSREF-Title-vx.x
Author(s): M. Alandes Due date: __

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

  1. 040411 PEB decision on policy handling: High quality and complete SA2 Policies will be made available for 2-weeks public comments. After this period, SA2 will finalise and publish the policies in twiki.
    If this decision is still valid, I suggest this is reflected in the doc:
    Purpose, 3rd paragraph; Conclusion;
  2. From SQAP: SQA process reviews the plans (work plans, release, support and maintenance, etc); it does not check compliance with the plans. Would it be possible to extend SQA process to include compliance checking?
    Or is this part of QC?
  3. Apart from Documentation (which you provided excellent analysis), I did not find similar compliance analysis wrt other SA2 policies
  4. The difference between release manager's acceptance criteria and SA2 acceptance criteria - why? rationale behind it?
  5. The development tracker [R18] was used by the JRA1 activity leader who defined one task per technical objective. The progress was never actually tracked and there is no relationship between the task and the corresponding RfC, so its difficult to evaluate whether the technical objectives have been actually achieved as planned in the work area plans. This was reported to PEB who said this was going to be used for EMI-2. SA2 considers a waste of time and effort introducing the tasks in savannah with no further action afterwards. -- I add this here as a note to PEB.

Minor comments

  1. EMI-1 -> EMI 1, EMI-2 -> EMI 2
  2. Change from first person to third person

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 I don't understand this comment
2     40411 PEB decision on policy handling: High quality and complete SA2 Policies will be made available for 2-weeks public comments. After this period, SA2 will finalise and publish the policies in twiki.
If this decision is still valid, I suggest this is reflected in the doc:
Ch 3, 3rd paragraph
3   Ch 4 Does SA2 review the release or SA2 reviews the compliance of release actors in SA2 policies? The latter is more inline with the scope of this deliverable. Also 4.2 is more precise - quality control, verification YES. Agreed to add a couple of lines about the work done by JRA1 QC and SA1 QC
4   4.1 Training sessions organised with NA2 I don't understand this comment
5   4.2 See related comment#3 above
'Results of the QC review will be reported in detail in the next SA1 QC report"- but the scope of this deliverable is (also) "report on the compliance with and results of the quality assurance process"
please clarify

54 products, although the number is changing; please add product URL

"The number of components complying with the release criteria [R6] is 17 against 40" do we have a table similar to

please add explanation why the release manager acceptance criteria is less strict than the SA2 acceptance criteria

YES to all except that we don't have a similar table for the SA2 acceptance criteria.
6   5.1 "The template was not used since it arrived too late according to the authors, but the documents were improved at least to include the plan with deadlines and responsibilities. The template will be used for future versions."
The template was used as guideline by workplan authors and important aspects of harmonisation, evolution and planning were in the final first year work plans. The template will serve the same purpose in future versions.
7   5.2 "This feedback will be sent to the release manager." - can we change the tense to "is sent" ? and inform Cristina already
this comment applies to 5.3, 5.4,5.5
NO. I have a lot of future actions and these ones are just some of them. I don't see any problem with this.
8   5.2 Metrics TOTALUSERINCIDENTS, TRAININGSUPPORTINCIDENTS and AVERAGETIMEFORUSERINCIDENTS are still not part of SA1 metrics This is indeed tracked as a future action.

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 - 21-May-2011

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
Microsoft Word filedoc EMI-DSA2.3.2-QAReport-v1_3_FE.doc r1 manage 1066.5 K 2011-05-27 - 04:17 UnknownUser Florida's comments on v1.3
Microsoft Word filedoc EMI-DSA2.3.2-QAReport-v1_3_FE_maria_FE.doc r1 manage 1078.5 K 2011-05-28 - 05:19 UnknownUser  
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r8 < r7 < r6 < r5 < r4 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r8 - 2011-05-28 - 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