Re: [Neams-pmt] FC R&D meeting, SQA Plan, and misc actions
Gents- See below. Think I had the wrong list serve included. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Peltz, James Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 5:57 PM To: 'Diachin, Lori A.' Cc: '[email protected]'; 'Pope, Greg' Subject: RE: FC R&D meeting, SQA Plan, and misc actions Importance: High Lori- I wanted to follow up on a few issues as well as inform you as to the outcome of my meeting with BP on his effort to revise the FC R&D's QA plan. I would summarize the main point of the meeting as a planning effort to clarify the roles of the Lab QA Organizations and that of the DOE site offices. Apparently the current QA plan captures the process correctly but its the process in which its applied that is driving the revision. These effortd will not likely impact the SQA efforts but does have the potential to impact the NEAMS FC R&D work packages in FY 2011 (e.g., assignment of rigor level). Ultimately, BP plans to adopt the NEAMS SQA plan in the software V&V area as part of the broader FC R&D QA plan. I have attached the draft presentation and will pass on the final version of the presentation when it becomes available (BP was making changes as we went along). BP has indeed requested a call with you all in order to get Ron Schrotke linked in with our SQA effort. I think it would be a good idea for either Keith or Hussein to be on the call too. Are all of you available next Thursday or possibly Friday? It would be nice to get this out of the way before the planning meeting. I envision the call as an opportunity to provide a brief update on the status of the SQA plan followed by a discussion with Ron regarding his future involvement. Thoughts? It would also be great to get the update on the computing time at INL. I plan on sending out an email to the PMT requesting action on this item but need more background information to properly articulate the request. Perhaps Lori can draft a request that I, Keith or Hussein can pass on. Look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, Jim -----Original Message----- From: Peltz, James Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 12:37 PM To: Diachin, Lori A.; 'Pope, Greg' Subject: FC R&D meeting, SQA Plan, and misc actions Lori and Greg- Thanks again for the discussion yesterday and the materials that you both passed on. I spoke with BP this morning concerning the QA meeting on July 7th and he wants it to be a face to face meeting predominately for the feds. I apologize for extending the invitation without knowing more of the specifics. That said, I will not be able to attend the meeting either and BP agreed to meet with me the day before for a dry run of his presentation. Apparently, the FC R&D QA plan that I sent previously is yet to be revised and this meeting is predominately to discuss the current process and identify the areas that should be considered for revision. After our meeting on the 6th, I will summarize the interaction as well as pass on any relevant guidance, docs, supplemental materials, etc. I also brought up Ron Schrotke and he proposed setting up a meeting/call to get all of us on the same page. I thought this was inline with our conversation yesterday and agreed that it would be a good idea. How are your schedules for the week of July 12th? Please provide me with a few scheduling possibilities that I can pass on to BP. I think at this point Ron's value would predominately come from an independent review of the NEAMS SQA plan; although, BP mentioned that Ron is also working on updating an appendix (which pertains to software quality issues) to the NQA plan so maybe it makes sense to involve him earlier in the development of our document? We can address this very issue at the planned meeting. On an unrelated topic, I mentioned the computing time available at INL to Alex. He thought it was definitely worth mentioning on the next PMT call but advised that we send an email as it may be two or three weeks before we have another call. I will wait for your update and will plan on sending an email to the PMT shortly after reminding them of their volunteers and their commitment. Does this approach sound reasonable to you? Thanks again and please feel free to call me should you need additional information or clarification on any of these issues. Jim James Peltz Office of Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NE-71) (202) 586-7564
All- This email was intended to go to the ECT folks, HQ mgt team and Keith and Hussein. I apologize for the confusion. Jim -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peltz, James Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:05 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Re: [Neams-pmt] FC R&D meeting, SQA Plan, and misc actions Gents- See below. Think I had the wrong list serve included. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Peltz, James Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 5:57 PM To: 'Diachin, Lori A.' Cc: '[email protected]'; 'Pope, Greg' Subject: RE: FC R&D meeting, SQA Plan, and misc actions Importance: High Lori- I wanted to follow up on a few issues as well as inform you as to the outcome of my meeting with BP on his effort to revise the FC R&D's QA plan. I would summarize the main point of the meeting as a planning effort to clarify the roles of the Lab QA Organizations and that of the DOE site offices. Apparently the current QA plan captures the process correctly but its the process in which its applied that is driving the revision. These effortd will not likely impact the SQA efforts but does have the potential to impact the NEAMS FC R&D work packages in FY 2011 (e.g., assignment of rigor level). Ultimately, BP plans to adopt the NEAMS SQA plan in the software V&V area as part of the broader FC R&D QA plan. I have attached the draft presentation and will pass on the final version of the presentation when it becomes available (BP was making changes as we went along). BP has indeed requested a call with you all in order to get Ron Schrotke linked in with our SQA effort. I think it would be a good idea for either Keith or Hussein to be on the call too. Are all of you available next Thursday or possibly Friday? It would be nice to get this out of the way before the planning meeting. I envision the call as an opportunity to provide a brief update on the status of the SQA plan followed by a discussion with Ron regarding his future involvement. Thoughts? It would also be great to get the update on the computing time at INL. I plan on sending out an email to the PMT requesting action on this item but need more background information to properly articulate the request. Perhaps Lori can draft a request that I, Keith or Hussein can pass on. Look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, Jim -----Original Message----- From: Peltz, James Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 12:37 PM To: Diachin, Lori A.; 'Pope, Greg' Subject: FC R&D meeting, SQA Plan, and misc actions Lori and Greg- Thanks again for the discussion yesterday and the materials that you both passed on. I spoke with BP this morning concerning the QA meeting on July 7th and he wants it to be a face to face meeting predominately for the feds. I apologize for extending the invitation without knowing more of the specifics. That said, I will not be able to attend the meeting either and BP agreed to meet with me the day before for a dry run of his presentation. Apparently, the FC R&D QA plan that I sent previously is yet to be revised and this meeting is predominately to discuss the current process and identify the areas that should be considered for revision. After our meeting on the 6th, I will summarize the interaction as well as pass on any relevant guidance, docs, supplemental materials, etc. I also brought up Ron Schrotke and he proposed setting up a meeting/call to get all of us on the same page. I thought this was inline with our conversation yesterday and agreed that it would be a good idea. How are your schedules for the week of July 12th? Please provide me with a few scheduling possibilities that I can pass on to BP. I think at this point Ron's value would predominately come from an independent review of the NEAMS SQA plan; although, BP mentioned that Ron is also working on updating an appendix (which pertains to software quality issues) to the NQA plan so maybe it makes sense to involve him earlier in the development of our document? We can address this very issue at the planned meeting. On an unrelated topic, I mentioned the computing time available at INL to Alex. He thought it was definitely worth mentioning on the next PMT call but advised that we send an email as it may be two or three weeks before we have another call. I will wait for your update and will plan on sending an email to the PMT shortly after reminding them of their volunteers and their commitment. Does this approach sound reasonable to you? Thanks again and please feel free to call me should you need additional information or clarification on any of these issues. Jim James Peltz Office of Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NE-71) (202) 586-7564 _______________________________________________ Neams-pmt mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/neams-pmt
participants (1)
-
Peltz, James