[Mpb] Re: Instrument View sign off - who?

Dear all, Thank you for the discussion at the board meeting earlier in regards to deciding on urgent Epics outside of prioritisation meetings. As it was also mentioned that giving a ‘heads up’ is useful I’m taking that comment on board too. It’s clear from feedback I’m getting from Stakeholders, my developers and the feedback from Pas on the minutes that Instrument View overhaul is something that can’t wait. We have also identified it as a dependency/potential blocker for the WISH II Epic. Therefore James has got in contact with Mol Spec and Reflectometry and Anders is talking with Rob Bewley. We have asked them to respond about the Instrument View Epic by the end of 1st November. We make it clear that if we don’t hear anything they have no objections. The reason for doing this is that I would like to be in a position to re-circulate the epic for approval to the board via this list the w/c 4th November. Muons have signed off on the Epic so we are just waiting for these last 3 areas for feedback. The changes to the Epic to take into account AlfView have been made. All the best Sarah From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI &lt;sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt; Sent: 18 October 2024 13:59 To: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS) &lt;stephen.king(a)stfc.ac.uk&gt; Cc: mpb(a)mantidproject.org Subject: [Mpb] Re: Instrument View sign off - who? Hi Steve, Thank you – this was a really helpful list! In the end we’ve contacted Steve and Johnny for Muons (Rob recommended Johnny in addition to Steve) Stewart and Sanghamitra for Mol Spec (Rob recommend Sanghamitra in addition to Stewart) Max for Reflectometry (on Rachel’s recommendation) Daniel Bowron for Disorded Materials Rob Bewley Daniel has already responded to say that he gives assent for the epic. When we put the original call out we also received a response from Hamish Cavaye, one of the Mol Spec scientists. He wasn’t able to be a stakeholder but provided feedback that was used when writing the epic. We decided to reach out to him for comments on the epic as we felt he had shown and interest and we wanted to check he felt we had incorporated what he needed into the epic. We did this at the same time as contacting those in the list above. He has responded to say he’s happy with the epic. In fact Travis Williams, the Excitations stakeholder, has been keeping in touch with him about it so he’s feeling `very well represented` (in his words!). I would still like input from Stewart and/or Sanghamitra for Mol Spec but we are trying to ensure we have consulted widely enough. Thanks Sarah From: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>> Sent: 16 October 2024 10:14 To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>> Cc: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> Subject: RE: [Mpb] Re: Instrument View sign off - who? Well, problem is the ISIS Group Leaders distribution list hits all GL’s. Looking at the names on the Epic, the obvious science groups not represented directly (assuming SteveC doesn’t respond to put his hand up!) are the ones your list, Sarah, plus Disordered Materials. So drop a line to Stewart, Adi, John & Daniel. Might also be worth including Rob Bewley. If you think it would be more impactful coming from another scientist, I’m happy to ask them for you! Steve From: Pascal Manuel - STFC UKRI <pascal.manuel@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:pascal.manuel@stfc.ac.uk>> Sent: 16 October 2024 08:46 To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>> Cc: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> Subject: [Mpb] Re: Instrument View sign off - who? I would just send to group leaders and let them volunteer someone. We already asked for volunteer and these groups didn’t engage Sent from my iPhone On 16 Oct 2024, at 08:11, Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>> wrote:  Dear all, Looking back at my notes from the prioritisation meeting last week I realised that I didn’t have all the information I need. With regards the Instrument View epic which areas do we need to show the Epic to and get sign off? I want to be very clear about this to avoid any further problems with this epic. I think it is just 1. Molecular Spectroscopy 2. Muons 3. Reflectometry Is that correct? They don’t need to be stakeholders – just review the epic, provide feedback and once they are happy say that they agree with it. Thanks Sarah Sarah Foxley Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager Science and Technology Facilities Council Phone – 01235 446938 sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org> She/Her/Hers <image001.png> _______________________________________________ Mantid Programme Board mailing list -- mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org> To unsubscribe send an email to mpb-leave@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb-leave@mantidproject.org>