Review Refereeing Capabilities / Complete MR
NRAO Interactive Services Modification Request 6C2n308, June 2008
1. Introduction
Why do we need this?
2. Background
Why do we care? What situation came up that let us know we had to do this? What other systems/people will we impact here?
3. Requirements
Very recently, the capability to assign referee groups to each proposal
has been added to the PST. This is the first step in referee processing
of the proposals. After the deadline has passed, an NRAO member or designate
of the Proposal Selection Committee (currently Claussen and Wrobel, for
the VLA/VLBA/HSA) assign referee groups to each proposal through the tool.
The next step will be to introduce a new class of user: the referee
(or reviewer) into the PST. A connection must be made between the
referee groups and the referees, i.e. each referee group is comprised
of some number of referees. (Referees may belong to more than one referee
group.) Each reviewer (we have some 60 different people for the
VLA/VLBA/HSA alone; probably 20 or more additionally for the GBT)
should be able to log on to the tool and read or print the proposals he
or she is reviewing, for each deadline. A referee must be able to see
only the proposals she is reviewing. In addition, the tool should
allow the reviewer to give a grade to each proposal and to enter comments,
both those to be seen by the proposer and those to be read only by the
proposal selection committee (PSC). The grade and the comments need to be
stored in the database, for further processing. Even if the proposal review
process changes from what it is today, there will be some reviewer
that needs to read and grade the proposals.
Each reviewer will get a signal (likely via email) that the proposals have
been sorted and are available for review. A referee may then log into the
tool at their leisure (until the review deadline), read, grade, and comment
on his assigned proposals. When finished with the reviews, the capability
will exist to notify the PSC (Lori, for example) that the referee has completed
her reviews (this could be done directly from the PST).
- From Green Bank (Carl B.)
See attachment:
Green_Bank_Proposal_Processing.doc
4. Design
Technical lead should provide a brief description of how this will be implemented in the code.
5. Deployment Checklist
Documentation? Systems/hardware/networking things needed for deployment?
6. Test Plan
6.1 Internal Testing
6.3 Integration/Regression Tests
Signatures
APPROVED: I acknowledge that my request is fully contained in this MR, and if the Open Sky (or other NIS or PST developers) deliver exactly what I specified, I will be happy.
ACCEPTED: I acknowledge that I have validated the completed code according to the acceptance tests, and I am happy with the results.
Written |
- - - - - |
Checked |
- - - - - |
Approved by Scientific Sponsor |
- - - - - |
Accepted/Delivered by Sponsor |
- - - - - |
Symbols:
- Use
%X%
if MR is not complete (will display )
- Use
%Y%
if MR iscomplete (will display )
Discussion Area
--
DanaBalser - 19 Feb 2008