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

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

Thanks.  I think plan B is just that we eat float.  We don't want to say 
now that we'll start cutting corners on testing.

On 9/12/19 7:20 AM, Elliot Lipeles wrote:
> Here are two options for more details on the trigger risks
> (either text or screen shot of relevant part of risk register).
>
>     For te HTT plan B doesn't seem very crisp - I think it says we are
>     behind, but there is poof of principle boards can be built, but
>     doesn't seem to address the timescale problem, i.e. you are
>     confident they can be built, but why are you confident they can be
>     built in time for the Fall?
>
>
> I'm not finding the full set of slides in this thread so I don't know 
> what you put there. My view is we may be late. This would mostly effect 
> the high-level testing plans. I.e. we are ~1.5 months late (fairly 
> confident it won't be much worse than that) and there is supposed to be 
> 4 months of testing before MREFC. If that gets cut to 2 months, what 
> will suffer is testing the high-level firmware on the hardware. Of 
> course the high-level firmware can also largely be testing in simulation 
> (the low-level stuff does need to be on the hardware).
>
> Elliot
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 7:10 AM Gustaaf Brooijmans 
> <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu <mailto:gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>> wrote:
>
>
>     Hi Mike,
>
>     Thanks, largely implemented.  A few follow-ups:
>
>      > *Q3-Trigger: maybe could add a bit more about what the risk is
>     since the title may in some cases be too cryptic?
>
>     => This I leave to Elliot.
>
>      >
>      > *Q4: I took this to mean a list of what remains to be done for
>     ALL systems, and then pick the few things that are most concerning.
>     Here we just list 2 examples (the ones that most concern)? Also the
>     plan B for the muon sMDT seems weak "but hoping to catch up before
>     April" what is the plan for that catch up, longer shifts? Something
>     else. Seems to vague as is. For te HTT plan B doesn't seem very
>     crisp - I think it says we are behind, but there is poof of
>     principle boards can be built, but doesn't seem to address the
>     timescale problem, i.e. you are confident they can be built, but why
>     are you confident they can be built in time for the Fall?
>
>     We *did* pick the few items that we think are most concerning,
>     Basically the ones where we haven't built a demonstrator ourselves yet.
>     We don't want to list one item per system, that wouldn't make sense.
>
>     Plan B is always a schedule slip.  I should add that.
>
>
>      > *Q12: presumably this is not a complete answer yet?
>
>     It is.
>
>     Best,
>
>     Gustaaf
>     _______________________________________________
>     Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l mailing list
>     Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>     <mailto:Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>     https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l