CDIGS and Dev.Globus Roadmap Review Guidelines

From CDIGS
Revision as of 22:16, 16 November 2007 by Liming@mcs.anl.gov (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Open review is vital to both CDIGS project plans and dev.Globus project plans. The dev.Globus guidelines provide very simple guidelines for open publication and review of project plans (long-term plans, short-term plans, and release plans). The following are expanded guidelines for use by CDIGS team members when developing CDIGS project plans and dev.Globus project plans.

The general philosophy of these guidelines is that team members must have flexibility in how they get their plans reviewed by the community, but at the same time, they must document how they've done it and what the results were. The review processes should be as open as possible, and the results should most definitely be open. Also, the CDIGS project is establishing a minimum bar for the amount of community review that must be performed on plans to which CDIGS resources are to be committed, and that bar is higher than the standard dev.globus bar.

High-level Review Requirements

  1. All CDIGS project plans should be reviewed by relevant community members. "Relevant" means: members of the community who are expected to find the products of the plan useful in their own work.
  2. The steps taken to review the plans with the community must be documented (who, what, where, when, how) and easily available to CDIGS management and ideally to the public.
  3. The results of the community review must be documented and easily available to CDIGS management and ideally to the public.

These are the only hard and fast "rules" that must be followed. The rest of these guidelines are subjective and will most likely vary from project area to project area.

CDIGS Plan Review Guidelines

The following guidelines apply to plans to which CDIGS team members will be committed. In order to justify our continued CDIGS funding, we need to demonstrate that our plans are designed to have a high impact on the NSF user community and to be useful to these users. It is not enough to publish our plans openly and wait for others to comment on the plans. We need to obtain explicit and positive feedback on the plans from relevant users, and in as many cases as possible, obtain a sense (ideally explicit) that the products of the work will be used by specific projects or users. The guidelines below are intended to provide ideas for how to obtain this feedback.

Note that these are also general guidelines. The details of how to satisfy the guidelines are left to the project team members to design. It is expected that different types of plans will require different types of review (number of people consulted, projects consulted, detail of the review, commitments obtained, etc.).