Phase transition: Review Configuration → Review Process/Individual Reviews
The System Description 3.5.1 Stakeholder usecase 1 discusses access to past disposition letters and conflicts. Is that assessed by an automatic system or via the self declaration? Does it cut their access to the past reviews only or this proposal too?
dsb: we have not fleshed this out but my thinking is that if the SRP member was a reviewer for the past proposal then they could have access to the proposal and disposition letter. Performing another self declaration seems too cumbersome. If they were not an SRP member for the past proposal they could always request info from the TTA group as a last resort (which is what happens now).
STT-884
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
STT-882
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
STT-881
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
SRP Chair
STT-871
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
STT-887
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
SRP Member
dsb: STT-875 - we should chat about this ticket.
STT-875
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
STT-888
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
The System Description implies that a user must select either Conflict or Available per proposal. Is this the behavior we want?
dsb: Yes, I think so.
STT-885
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
dsb: STT-877 - in the system description we used "blank" instead of "not saved" for the review state. I do not feel strongly either way but we should be consistent.
STT-877
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
STT-876
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
dsb: STT-878 - currently valid scores are between 0.1 and 9.9 (inclusive). Also, I am not sure we want to include cues for the individual review. This is meant to be more free form, unlike the consensus review. One could argue otherwise, but I don't think we currently have cues here.
STT-878
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
If Review Type is None, what is Review State?
dsb: Blank. That is, the Review State does not change.
dsb: STT-873 - we should chat about this ticket.
STT-873
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
STT-879
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
STT-910
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
STT-911
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
dsb: STT-905 - I think we want to also see the standard deviation of the Mean Normalized Score
STT-905
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Can the SRP member do so automatically or must it be enabled by the chair?
dsb: good question. It might be best to only allow the chair to update the Final Normalized Individual Score.
STT-908
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
STT-909
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Other prompts for the consensus review comments?
dsb: yes, we should include (with defaults) the following to the PI comments:
Recommended time: The SRP does not recommend a change to the proposed time request.
Technical issues affecting ranking or recommended time: None.
I am not sure we want prompts for the Internal Comments. If there are no comments, and therefore only the cues, then this might be distracting during the TAC meeting. Most should be blank. Maybe remove for now.
STT-903
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
TTA Member
STT-898
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
What are the permissions to a reviewer with a Conflict State of Unknown?
STT-886
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
STT-872
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
STT-907
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Feasibility Reviewer
STT-892
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
STT-893
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Phase Transition: Individual Reviews → Consensus Reviews
Dana, what information do you want to see in an interface at this stage?
STT-933
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
