Print

Print


Start of Discussion Period Robert Lutz <a href="/index.htm?LOGON=A3%3Dind0807%26L%3DSAC-PSG-DSEEP%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D534%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3DUTF-8%26XSS%3D3%26header%3D1" target="_parent" >[log in to unmask]</a> <a href="/index.htm?LOGON=A3%3Dind0807%26L%3DSAC-PSG-DSEEP%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D534%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3DUTF-8%26XSS%3D3%26header%3D1" target="_parent" >[log in to unmask]</a>
PDG Members:

Based on the results of our last meeting (at Euro-SIW), there is exactly one open matter with respect to Round 2 comment resolution.   This has to do with an inconsistency with respect to the resolutions of Comments 81 and 85.  For Comment 81, the issue in question is in Activity 5.1 (Plan Execution), which reads as follows:

Is the Simulation Environment Development and Execution Plan supposed to be an overall Master Plan?  In Activity Inputs there is a "simulation environment development and execution plan" and as a recommended task there is "develop detailed execution plan." how are these two documents different? Does one input in to the other?

The author's suggested resolution to this comment reads as follows:

Improve identification of documentation products and ensure consistent tracing of document threads through the process.

The DG proposed resolution to this comment reads as follows:

The assumption here is that there is one master plan that is a living document that increases in detail as the overall process moves forward.  While the document is explicit about this in the areas of VV&A, test, and security (see Page 23, Line 23), it is not explicit about this on Page 24, Line 1.  

Page 23, Line 23 - include the word "execution" (on line 24) after test and before "and security".  Remove Line 1 on Page 24.

The combined vote on this comment, including voters from both the Spring and Euro-SIWs, was 16 to accept the DG resolution, 0 opposed to the DG resolution, and no abstentions.  

For Comment 85, the issue in question is in Activity 7.1 (Analyze Data), which reads as follows:

"Defining appropriate 'pass/fail' evaluation criteria for the execution"

Definition of "pass/fail" criteria should not happen in the Analyze Data Activity. This is too late in the process.

The author's suggested resolution to this comment reads as follows:
 
Move this task to earlier in the process where more appropriate.

The DG proposed resolution to this comment reads as follows:
 
Agree.  To address this issue, the phrase "defining appropriate "pass/fail"evaluation criteria for the execution and" will be removed.  

Then, in the next activity: the sentence "This step also includes evaluating the results against the test criteria for the M&S environment" will be changed to "This step also includes evaluating the results against the test and execution "pass/fail" criteria for the simulation environment".  

Finally, the "Develop detailed execution plans" task under Activity 5.1 will be changed to "Develop detailed execution plans, including the identification of appropriate "pass/fail" criteria for the execution".

While the original vote from the Spring SIW for Comment 85 was 11 to accept the DG resolution, 0 opposed to the DG resolution, and no abstentions, there was no vote taken at the Euro-SIW.  The issue in this case is an inconsistency between the two DG resolutions.  In the resolution of Comment 81, the PDG approved removing Line 1 on Page 24.  However, in the resolution of Comment 85, the vote at at the Spring SIW stated to change LIne 1 on Page 24 to "Develop detailed execution plans, including the identification of appropriate "pass/fail" criteria for the execution".  The inconsistency is that it is impossible to both remove the line and change the wording of the line.  

The DG feels that the best solution to this situation is to maintain the previously approved DG resolution to Comment 81, but include another recommended task under Activity 5.1 which reads:

Include appropriate "pass/fail" criteria in the simulation environment development and execution plan".

This solution provides an amendment to the third part of the DG resolution (beginning with "Finally, the ...") for Comment 85.  This solution preserves the PDG consensus already reached on Comment 81, and satisfies the commenter's original issue as stated in Comment 85.  

The purpose of this message is to announce the beginning of a ten working day open discussion period on this suggested resolution (ending 1 August), to be followed by the electronic vote.  Instructions for the electronic vote will be provided at the end of this discussion period.  Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks in advance for your participation in the activities of the DSEEP PDG.

Bob Lutz (DSEEP Chair)


To unsubscribe from the SAC-PSG-DSEEP list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-PSG-DSEEP