01: Please supply any comments related to the Introduction, Definitions, or Background sections.

For the Lead Sponsor should we limit who this is to the person submitting the Change Request Form? We think a better definition may be “The individual identified on the Change Request Form as the Lead Sponsor”.

02: Please supply any comments related to the Change Request section (3).

No Comments

03: Please supply any comments related to the Change Request - Change Request Form section (3.1).

Would it be beneficial to have an “other” type of Change Request? This would be if a submitter is unsure, or they may not know the correct selection in the type of change list provided.

04: Please supply any comments related to the Change Request - Compile Concepts section (3.2).

No Comments

05: Please supply any comments related to the Change Request - PRC Review of Concepts section (3.3).

Is there more information on how the vote will occur for a prioritization list? For example, is it a yes/no vote, or would participants have the ability to cast priority points for certain Concepts and the list is a result of those Concepts who garner the most priority points?

06: Please supply any comments related to the Change Request - Level of Effort Review section (3.4).

No comments

07: Please supply any comments to the Workplan Development section (4).

No comments

08: Please supply any comments to the Workplan Development - PRC Development of Workplan section (4.1).

No comments  

09: Please supply any comments to the Workplan Development - Draft Workplan Review Process section (4.2).

APS is interested in why there is not a review of the PRC’s workplan done by the RAPC? It appears to be a missing stop in the path to ultimate approval by the Board.   If this is covered in BPM 302 it would be good to point that out as is done with the mention of the Board approving the proposals.

10: Please supply any comments to the Workplan Development - Workplan Approval section (4.3).

No comments

General Comment

No comments