Action items listed here were captured during the CoDR meeting sessions held April 15-16, 2020
OVERVIEW
SRDP-522 Add to risk register the insufficient details of the review variants at this stage, potential for cross talk and confusion in process details that may be outside of current architectureUpdated, marked doneSRDP-496 & 475 clarify diagrams taking the technical nature of notation, generalize the diagram, and add a legend where neededAdded comment to both tickets, Assigned to Jeff as Post Review Action-
SRDP-493 clarify need for filtering and flexible project creation in System Description document, perhaps capture nature of observations at submission (DDT, RSRO, etc.)Added comment to ticket, assigned to Dana for Post Review ActionAdd risk that we have not missed any other parts of the processUpdated Risk Register, see comment in ticket
SRDP-532 Done, solution discussed in meeting accepted -ClosedSRDP-461&531 Clarify requirement, compile a quantified list of things people like about the ALMA OT and what they don't like about the PST. Mine Science Helpdesk tickets to identify what is tripping people up about the PST.
Added above comment to ticket, assigned to Jeff as Post Review ActionSRDP-515 Add discussion of what needs to be captured to allocate subarrays to System Description under capabilities, perhaps also in Sec 2Added comments to ticket, assigned to Dana as Post Action ReviewAlso add discussion on the ability for observers to request commensal systems to be on/off, does PI get to request data from commensal system?
REVIEWS
SRDP-522 Also discussed under OVERVIEW, no additional action from this discussionSRDP-507 Clarify the wording that the tool does not automatically assign reviewers,Added Comment to ticket, assigned to Dana as post Review ActionSRDP-537 & 541 Point to current guidelines as the policy for defining conflictsAdded Comment to ticket, assigned to Dana as post Review ActionSRDP-505 Although automated seems simple on the surface, too many edge cases drive this to a manual review for conflict, recommended solution accepted-ClosedSRDP-487 Committee recommends that the project should consider changing the Technical Justification from being tied to an Allocation Request to instead be tied to a Facility. The project should perform an evaluation including stakeholders to evaluate the impact and necessity of this change.Added Comment to ticket, assigned to Jeff as post Review ActionSRDP-477 Change the wording to clarify that DDT proposals are not necessarily executed in the current semesterAdded Comment to ticket, assigned to Dana as post Review Action
ARCHITECTURE
SRDP-521 & 514 Clarify either in the Preface or Sec 2 the definition of capabilities and resources, how they are associated with each other and relate to Allocation Requests, recognizing which apply to proposal submission and which to schedulingAdded Comment to tickets, assigned SRDP-514 to Dana, SRDP-521 to Mark as post Review ActionsSRDP-513 Mark to clarify the placement of generators (internal vs. external) within the model addedcomment from slide to ticket, assigned to Mark. W. for Post Action ReviewSRDP-520 Add sentence near figure that proposals may link to many projectsadded comment from slide and assigned as Post Action Review to Mark W.SRDP-431 Close w/o actionClosedSRDP-516 Suggested action in Architecture slide is accepted, added comment from slide to ticket, assigned to Mark. W. for Post Action ReviewSRDP-430 & 483 These are also related to the addition of reliability as a Quality Attribute, Develop and conduct several user driven Quality Attribute Scenarios, adding the plan and strategy to the document; potential scenarios include use of tutorials and the STSCI videos are a tool to shed light on how users use S/W to submit. Deadline?Added Comment to tickets, assigned to Dana as post Review Action, although they are in the Architecture Review.
WORKFLOW
SRDP-501 Clarify as discussed in the Jira Ticket.Assigned to Dana as Post Review ActionSRDP-519 & SRDP-540: Clarify Standard and nonstandard processing in the Document as discussed on the ticket.Added this comment to both tickets, Assigned to Dana as Post Review ActionSRDP-489: Clarify in the document that for the DDT case, the description is an internal software view, but the "User View" will consist of a single screen for entry of information from all phases.Added this comment to both tickets, Assigned to Dana as Post Review ActionSRDP-480 Re-evaluate granularity of the assignment of proposals to super TAC process, Clarify the language and perhaps structure regarding reviews and approvals currently defined as Super TACs (especially as relates to HSA).Added this comment to ticket, Assigned to Dana as Post Review ActionSRDP-440 Update System Description to reflect the requirement in the System Concept to capture to database approved Allocation Requests and Allocation Dispositions as well as the metrics to track these items.Added this comment to ticket, Assigned to Dana as Post Review ActionSRDP-495 The particular items to be edited should be done in the OPT, add comment to ticket and closeAdded this comment to ticket and closedSRDP-494 Initial phase of project builder tool should include at minimum: Authors, Sources, Hours Allocation, Configuration and Priority. (For VLA). Do analysis of if this costs time or if we can include it.Added this comment to ticket, Assigned to Jeff as Post Review ActionSRDP-538 Incorporate language in System Description to better describe the functional operation of the ACLAdded this comment to ticket, Assigned to Dana as Post Review ActionAdd this as a risk alsoDone, Added as TTAT-12Title: Uncertain viability of ACLDescription: The complexity of current interfaces to existing instrument observing systems is somewhat unknown, therefore a risk exists that this design will be successfulStrategy: Accept, monitor, and target for early testing
TESTING
SRDP-523, SRDP-524 incorporate suggested solutions from the slide deck and move to Post Review ActionUpdated tickets with info from slide deck, assigned to Jeff as Post Review ActionSRDP-469 incorporate suggested solutions from the slide deck and move to Post Review ActionSRDP-469 has been updated and closed (assigned to Bob)
- Additional discussion on test - Committee has concern the projected validation effort is light. Jeff provided a detailed SS reflecting effort estimates. CLI will facilitate subsequent regression testing as test scripts evolve. Brian suggested including a recommendation in the report
- Action - Alan to include recommendation in report
- Action - Project to articulate and record this as a Risk
- Action - Project to document a plan to monitor effort as project progresses and revise estimates
OTHER ISSUES
Seven issues remained "In Review" at the time of the meeting, all submitted by Rachel. A quick pass over the list resulted in probably all responses are sufficient. These will be transitioned to Closed or Post Action Review as appropriate for current state of ticket.Done- Rachel will review and respond if anything needs further attention
- Committee has concerns with Funding Model as described and prioritization of resources, this will be articulated in the Committee Report