You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 31 Next »

Agenda:

  • Sprint Calendar
  • certify v0.1 as finished (ORR)
  • Jira tickets with updated acceptance criteria
    • 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 - seems to me that the conflicted proposals should still be listed.

      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 - seems to me that the conflicted proposals should still be listed.

      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?

      dsb: good question.  I think the same as conflicted.  Also, I do not think we want to "reset" the conflict state.  That is, if a reviewer declared a conflict and now decides they are not conflicted, I do not think we want to set the conflict state back to "unknown" and have them redo the conflict declaration.  This unnecessarily complicates the process.

      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?

      dsb: I prefer a matrix like the Reviews Summary page in the PST that shows the Review Type and Review State.

      STT-933 - Getting issue details... STATUS



Open Actions:

DescriptionDue dateAssigneeTask appears on
2024-06-28 TTA Requirements Meeting
  • Jeff Kern Discuss with ADs the role of the new tools vs existing PHT.
Jeff Kern2023-04-28 TTA Requirements Meeting
  • Discussion on F2F parking lot items
2022-09-02 TTA Requirements Meeting
  • Establish who is Telescope Subsystem Scientist for GBT & VLBA.
2021-12-17 TTA Requirements Meeting

  • No labels