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

[Elliot Lipeles <lipeles AT hep.upenn.edu>]

I second Johns suggestion on the risks.

I'm a bit stumped on the "what are the (5) major technical requirements,". I.e. what level are we talking about?...

Should this be extracted from the technical specifications document?  E.g. TP provides external links, full-mesh backplane data sharing, and mezzanine I/O for 8 ITK layers (input event rate of 1 MHz for 10% of the detector plus 100 kHz for the full detector) or 5 ITK layers (100 kHz for the full detector) for first and second stage, respectively.  

Or something more flowdown like, e.g. HTT provides 2 GeV tracking in region that comprise 10% of the detector data at 1 MHz?

Elliot

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:19 PM John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu> wrote:

If we interpret #3 as, as it sounds to me, the top 5
risks by rank per subsystem, can't we just ask George to extract
that info based on the ranks in the RR?  (sorry George,
but you did volunteer! :)

(and if we interpret it that each L2 should choose which
5 "bother them most", we just open ourselves to the
question of what the risk rank in the RR actually means)

On 9/11/19 7:55 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>

--
______________________________________________________________________

John Parsons
Nevis Labs,             Email: parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu
  Columbia University   Phone: (914) 591-2820
P.O. Box 137            Fax: (914) 591-8120
Irvington, NY 10533     WWW: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nevis.columbia.edu_-7Eparsons_&d=DwIDaQ&c=aTOVZmpUfPKZuaG9NO7J7Mh6imZbfhL47t9CpZ-pCOw&r=Z0wuTxQYnTTMlYma4lGZlO3skeCGVBrGGurYkWbhJsJuG5HaY82rmCNSdFOV7C4Z&m=QmXFkjjm7kvHTI3zuSjkPm_NAHfhDWgT9kqSRzQKOrc&s=utMfkvqWsR7l_ekRvJPDYbrChTMFqHmgKDEntVEZGME&e=   

______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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