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 |
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 |
YES | ||
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 http://www.eu-emi.eu/kebnekaise-products "The number of components complying with the release criteria [R6] is 17 against 40" do we have a table similar to http://www.eu-emi.eu/kebnekaise-acceptance-criteria 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. |
YES | |
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 https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/EMI/EmiKPIs | This is indeed tracked as a future action. |
I | Attachment | History | Action | Size | Date | Who | Comment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
doc | 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 |
doc | EMI-DSA2.3.2-QAReport-v1_3_FE_maria_FE.doc | r1 | manage | 1078.5 K | 2011-05-28 - 05:19 | UnknownUser |