Uploaded image for project: 'Request For Comments'
  1. Request For Comments
  2. RFC-476

LDM-622: QA Working Group Charge

    Details

    • Type: RFC
    • Status: Implemented
    • Resolution: Done
    • Component/s: DM
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      I request approval of LDM-622, and the concomitant authorization to convene a working group as described therein.

      LDM-622 is available in source form on GitHub, although it is not currently in Docushare or available from ldm-622.lsst.io (both of those will be forthcoming). For convenience, a PDF is attached to this ticket.

      I welcome comments and suggestions in regard of the WG charge. To facilitate that, I propose to leave this RFC open for a couple of days before flagging it for the DM-CCB's attention.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            gpdf Gregory Dubois-Felsmann added a comment -

            A few comments:

            • The discussion above that limits the scope to the DM development and DM-internal verification phase did not appear to result in any changes to the document. The document already said "... this WG is not charged with delivering tools explicitly designed for use by the Commissioning Team." but this didn't seem to be enough to forestall the concerns expressed. Is any clarification needed in the document before its approval?
            • Related: perhaps the use of the term "commissioners" in the first bullet in Section 1 is misleading in this context?
            • Trivial: in Section 2, the working group is presumably not meeting today, so maybe "before the end of April" should be changed to "in early May"?
            • In the next-to-last bullet of Section 4, I'd like the parenthetical changed to "(see, for example, RFC-243 and RFC-249)". (Or perhaps, it was only RFC-243 that was meant in the first place and "249" was a typo?)

            Otherwise, thumbs up.

            Show
            gpdf Gregory Dubois-Felsmann added a comment - A few comments: The discussion above that limits the scope to the DM development and DM-internal verification phase did not appear to result in any changes to the document. The document already said "... this WG is not charged with delivering tools explicitly designed for use by the Commissioning Team." but this didn't seem to be enough to forestall the concerns expressed. Is any clarification needed in the document before its approval? Related: perhaps the use of the term "commissioners" in the first bullet in Section 1 is misleading in this context? Trivial: in Section 2, the working group is presumably not meeting today, so maybe "before the end of April" should be changed to "in early May"? In the next-to-last bullet of Section 4, I'd like the parenthetical changed to "(see, for example, RFC-243 and RFC-249 )". (Or perhaps, it was only RFC-243 that was meant in the first place and "249" was a typo?) Otherwise, thumbs up.
            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            John Swinbank I'm happy to process the release of this document once you sign off on the comment from Gregory Dubois-Felsmann above.

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - John Swinbank I'm happy to process the release of this document once you sign off on the comment from Gregory Dubois-Felsmann above.
            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            Thanks, Gregory Dubois-Felsmann, for useful comments. I've pushed a few small changes to the document which I think address them all.

            Tim Jenness, as far as I'm concerned it's all yours...

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - Thanks, Gregory Dubois-Felsmann , for useful comments. I've pushed a few small changes to the document which I think address them all. Tim Jenness , as far as I'm concerned it's all yours...
            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            Adopted at today's DMLT meeting.

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - Adopted at today's DMLT meeting.
            Hide
            gpdf Gregory Dubois-Felsmann added a comment -

            My concerns are indeed addressed; thank you, John Swinbank.

            Show
            gpdf Gregory Dubois-Felsmann added a comment - My concerns are indeed addressed; thank you, John Swinbank .

              People

              • Assignee:
                swinbank John Swinbank
                Reporter:
                swinbank John Swinbank
                Watchers:
                Angelo Fausti, Colin Slater, Eric Bellm, Gregory Dubois-Felsmann, Hsin-Fang Chiang, Jim Bosch, John Parejko, John Swinbank, Kian-Tat Lim, Krzysztof Findeisen, Robert Lupton, Tim Jenness
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                12 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:
                  Planned End:

                  Summary Panel