[Pansophy] C100R-CMTF-CM-ACTS-R2

[Mike Drury]

I just updated my R2 file and did not consider whether it should iterate 
to R3.  If it needs to be an R3, the revision note should say that is 
for error correction.
Thanks,
Mike

On 1/25/2023 1:55 PM, Allen Samuels wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> I was working on the traveler when I noticed that an R2 is already in 
> pansophy. Was this an accidental reroute, or is it an R3 that never 
> got renamed from R2? If it is the latter, what should the revision 
> note be?
>
> Allen
>
> *From:* Mike McCaughan <michaelm at jlab.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2023 11:45 AM
> *To:* Allen Samuels <samuels at jlab.org>; Michael Drury <drury at jlab.org>
> *Cc:* pansophy at jlab.org
> *Subject:* Re: C100R-CMTF-CM-ACTS-R2
>
> Sounds good. Let's do it!
>
> Mike M
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Allen Samuels <samuels at jlab.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2023 11:44 AM
> *To:* Michael Drury <drury at jlab.org>
> *Cc:* Mike McCaughan <michaelm at jlab.org>; pansophy at jlab.org 
> <pansophy at jlab.org>
> *Subject:* RE: C100R-CMTF-CM-ACTS-R2
>
> It’s small enough that I don’t think so. If step 39 needed to be 
> removed I would reroute. As long as Mike McCaughan is in agreement now 
> I think we’re good, and the traveler can start the upload process as 
> soon once the step numbers are fixed.
>
> Allen
>
> *From:* Mike Drury <drury at jlab.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2023 11:38 AM
> *To:* Allen Samuels <samuels at jlab.org>
> *Cc:* Mike McCaughan <michaelm at jlab.org>; pansophy at jlab.org
> *Subject:* Re: C100R-CMTF-CM-ACTS-R2
>
> Step 39 is indeed necessary.
> Does fixing the numbering require another approval cycle?
> Mike
>
> On 1/25/2023 11:32 AM, Allen Samuels wrote:
>
>     Mike,
>
>     C100R-CMTF-CM-ACTS-R2 has been approved, but Mike McCaughan
>     brought something up in an approval comment that I wanted to ask
>     about. He said
>
>     “Numbering of steps missed a block on page 4 between steps 11/12;
>     revise present step 13 for corrected numbering.
>
>     Is step 39 on page 14 necessary? In order to conduct the test it
>     is implicit that facility has a present/valid PSS static and
>     functional certification which wrings all of this out of the system.”
>
>     Are these changes that need to be made? Does this traveler need to
>     be put on pause to discuss?
>
>     Allen
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pansophy/attachments/20230125/2db8869a/attachment.html>