Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l - Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] February variance reports

usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>
  • To: Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
  • Subject: Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] February variance reports
  • Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 11:11:33 +0200


Hello all,

A quick follow-up before Mike submits the report tomorrow:


-6.4: the explanation needs to quantify which fraction of the variance is due
to each source.
-6.4.1: the issues have not been addressed. This will *not* satisfy NSF, and
it does not satisfy us.
-6.4.2 is fine
-6.4.3: I’m not sure the first two sentences of the corrective action are
still relevant

-6.8, 6.8.2 and 6.8.4 are now 1 week late, and this is unacceptable given
that we need to file with NSF tomorrow!

> On Mar 28, 2022, at 10:55 AM, Gustaaf Brooijmans
> <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> First, it would be very much appreciated if variance reports could be
> filled in a timely way. The deadline to file these is the 23rd of the
> month and having to run after people every month is a waste of our time.
> Please set a reminder in your calendar.
>
> A few comments about the February variance reports that have been filed:
>
> -6.4, 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 are missing
>
> -6.4.1: please say what fraction of the schedule variance is due to the rad
> board delay (quantifying this is required), and also explain the other
> sources - the UT Austin delay is only ~1/3 of the schedule variance.
> Please pay attention and don’t say things that are manifestly wrong ("is
> driven by Austin”).
>
> -6.5: the 6.5.1 delay leaves $130k unexplained. I realize the other two
> are each below $100k, but together they are above, so maybe a sentence that
> says ELMB production and LVPS pre-production are delayed is useful, and
> then have an impact statement saying there’s plenty of float for those?
>
> -6.5.1 is good
>
> -6.6: all reports look good to me
>
> -6.8, 6.8.2 and 6.8.4 are missing
>
> -6.8.3 is good
>
> Thx
>
> Gustaaf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page