From: Geoff Hall [g.hall@ic.ac.uk] Sent: 19 November 2002 13:13 To: Coughlan, JA (John) Subject: Re: FED reviews Hi John Thanks for your comprehensive answer, which satisfies me completely. I believe we have covered everything that can be at this stage, so if you feel you need formal to go to manufacture, you should take this mail as providing it. I am now more worried about going out on time, so I hope Chris Day will be able to complete his work by the end of the week. I know sickness cannot be prevented (I also had a day off yesterday following a weekend in bed) but it would now be very frustrating to miss our deadline. cheers, Geoff On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 11:11 am, Coughlan, JA (John) wrote: > Hi Geoff, > > I have been assuming that the information presented at our regular > meetings > were sufficient for purposes of "external" reviews and also approving > first > pair of FF1 production. If more information was required I would have > hoped > it would be raised there. We'd have been happy to go through in more > detail > the schematics etc which have been made available throughout the > process. > > The first pair of FF1 were techically not a project deliverable in the > spec > (the 10 off batch FF1 were). > But Ken is correct. In the spirit of the project we ought to have a > formal > signing off on first pair of FF1s. > > The QA process in general is targeted more at final production boards. > The > system doesn't cater well for very long term projects. The FF1 > prototype is > actually almost a mini-project in itself. > > What we have done up to now though. > We had the preliminary review in Jan when we signed off the Project > Spec. > At this point we formally moved from Feasibility to Implementation > phase of > project. > > We have held a number of internal Interim Reviews in ID during the > design > process. > Assumption was our UK meetings served as reviews outside ID. > I am still trying to make our complete Project web pages with minutes > of > these reviews etc publicly accessible. In fact the existing FED-UK > pages may > be inaccessible for periods because of this. > > We had an internal Final Review last month with Adam Baird acting as > refereee. > I append the minutes of that meeting. > We could and perhaps should have devoted a UK meeting to an external > Final > review and sign off. > (We would certainly have needed one before signing off the larger > batch). > > I hesitate to go through the User Requirements (it's a long document). > It > isn't written with a simple to extract list of Musts, Should haves etc. > > But essentially the FF1 "hardware" design should not exclude any of the > functionality described in the User document. Although some things > like hot > swap I wouldn't like to guarantee. I don't understand myself all the > requirements from laser alignment. > If there's anything in particular that is of concern we could discuss? > > Most of the functionality described in the document is determined by > the > level of sophistication of the Firmware. E.g. We have hardware > signals for > a VME interface that could do 64 bit block transfers. But we don't > plan to > implement the firmware to do that. The error checking and reporting is > primitive if non existent now, but could be implemented. > > We planned to concentrate on firmware for Module testers minimal > requirements (when and if they are specified). > So we assumed Header finding and scope mode > Raw data > VME readout (block transfer if possible) > TTC clock and reset > Trigger throttle > > You can give a formal sign off by email. > > I assume we don't want to hold FF1 manufacture until after next week's > meeting though. > > Cheers John > > PS When I spoke with Chris in design office at the end of last week he > was > still confident of getting the board out this week. I couldn't get an > update > on progress today as he is off sick today. > I'm still putting together the spreadsheet with the new effort profiles > resulting from last week's exercise. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff Hall [mailto:g.hall@imperial.ac.uk] > Sent: 18 November 2002 23:08 > To: coughlan > Subject: FED reviews > > > Hi John > This was a comment I got from Ken. I don't see a need for this, as I > don't know of any reason why the URD requirements should not be met and > wouldn't expect (I hope not naively) to pick anything up in a review. > Nor do I see a need for a review before you send out the first two > boards. If we had not been meeting regularly, this could have been > different. > However, it would be a good idea to (briefly) remind me of the reviews > which are foreseen in the system. > Would you mind? > Thanks > Geoff > >> since I seemed to miss any invite to a Final Customer Review of FF1, >> prior to launching production, >> would it be useful if John were quickly to review FF1 **HARDWARE** >> wrt User Requirement Document's * Musts >> * Shoulds >> * Would-be-nice-ifs > -- > Geoff Hall Professor of Physics > > Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, LONDON SW7 2AZ, UK > tel: +44 (0)207-594-7800 fax: +44 (0)207-823-8830 . > > CERN Bat 40-4B-08 . > tel: + 41 22 76 71582 fax: +41 22 76 78940 . > > -- Geoff Hall Professor of Physics Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, LONDON SW7 2AZ, UK tel: +44 (0)207-594-7800 fax: +44 (0)207-823-8830 CERN Bat 40-4B-08 tel: + 41 22 76 71582 fax: +41 22 76 78940