U.S. ATLAS HL-LHC Upgrade Level 2 and Deputies-NSF only Management Mailing List

[Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>]

Hello all,

Just to be clear, the questions with input needed from the L2s/system 
teams are:

1. if you haven't done so yet, please provide an earliest/latest 
decision point to Hal to update our table

3. Please provide an ordered table to me

4. Each L2, please send me and Hal the item you're most worried about, 
and we'll downselect

7. LAr to provide 1-2 slides

8.  LAr and muon to provide a few sentences each

9.  Mike, please provide a phrasing that's not too contradicting

10. Each L2 provide 2 slides: one with top 5 items, one with DD for one 
of them

11.  Mark K: please provide a slide

Thanks,

Gustaaf

On 9/11/19 5:36 PM, Michael Tuts wrote:
> Probably homework assignments are obvious…enjoy
>
> *From:* Tony Beasley <tbeasley AT nrao.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 11, 2019 5:26 PM
> *To:* Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>; Mark Coles (mcoles AT nsf.gov) 
> <mcoles AT nsf.gov>
> *Subject:* Homework - Day 1
>
> Dear Mike,
>
> Please find some questions from the Panel to be addressed at 8:30am 
> tomorrow. Expect a short paragraph, verbal description or diagram in 
> most cases.
>
> thanks… Tony
>
>  1. Descope/upscope items - please provide both preferred/scheduled and
>     need-by dates... 
>
>  2. Please provide a schedule of expiration of descope options
>     throughout project. please focus on dates... 
>
>  3. Provide top 5 risks in rank order (worst->least) for each major
>     subsystem. The risk register is dense .. would like to see the major
>     concerns. 
>
>  4. Hank Evans: please provide a rank-ordered list of remaining work
>     packages (in the pre-MREFC project) - what are you most concerned
>     about? Please mention your “plan B's”. 
>
>  5. Please provide the total project BOE distribution - pie chart format. 
>
>  6. Columbia mgt decision to implement 30 subawards generates a cost
>     impact ~$186k ...   was this to support EV reporting?   What did the
>     project gain from this change?
>
>  7. What risks are being carried forward by the project by the
>     (aggressive?) scheduled downselect of the ADC in December? e.g.
>     radiation tolerance of the ADC ASIC version 3? Please clarify
>     statement on radiation tolerance of commercial ADC option. 
>
>  8. What is the schedule risk of the late delivery of the production
>     version of lpGBT?
>
>  9. Please restate/clarify Scientific travel – where is it covered in
>     the MREFC award?  Suggest: please produce List of significant things
>     not in there yet.... don't let us find them.
>
> 10. For each subsystem - what are the (5) major technical requirements,
>     and what is your assessment of your ability to meet them (and what
>     is the basis of that assessment?). Please trace one major
>     science/technical specification from the international ATLAS
>     specification, through your US ATLAS specification set, indicate
>     where addressed in design, and demonstrate how you intend to assess
>     compliance. 
>
> 11. Please describe the connections between the EPO manager, the L2
>     managers, and the EPO proponents at the partner universities. How is
>     communication/coordination occuring between these groups? How
>     specifically will the project take advantage of community
>     initiatives like QUARKNET? Give examples of joint activities being
>     considered. 
>
> 12. How exposed is the US project to CERN Project Management
>     uncertainties in schedule? If CERN schedule drifts across many
>     subsystems, could the US project be negatively impacted beyond
>     current expectations? 
>
> ///
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l mailing list
> Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l

--
Gustaaf Brooijmans - Columbia University
@Columbia: (212) 854 4527; Nevis virtual phone: (914) 591 2804

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.