Review board organization

Feedback from Rosie, none from INFN (also after asking Francesco),

will go with 4 reviewers if no feedback from INFN, and not take Rosie as expertise is already covered.

Issues/Changes with the current documents

p5: there is no "disk" at CC-IN2P3, is this true/important?
p6: Maybe add calibration/gitlab data to the table? If I understand correctly how the git archive works, it's more than just the non-experimental data mentioned in p8
p9: " In addition, since the data processing is based on the processing of files, this archive is preferred over querying a relational database in terms of efficiency." This sentence is a bit hard to understand for me

Overall I felt like it could use an overview of how it all fits together. Right now it felt a bit like a long laundry list of frameworks and tools, and personally I got a bit lost. A short introduction to explain why each step is important would make it easier for the reader. (Paco)
p8: In this table, not very clear to me what the sizes mean. Is it per event, per run, per year? (Paco)
p13: maintenance efforts "kept minimal". This seems a bit optimistic (things break all the time), but it depends on what is meant with this. (Paco)
p16: Quite a few points where funding does not exist. Is finding this funding part of the INFRADEV project? What happens if it isn't found? (Paco)

One or many - one working draft version of the DMP
- Old DMP provided as reference
- Computing model -> Mieke's doc
- Data level -> graph + supplementary doc
- Allocation of resources -> Governance
- Alert -> supplementary, add data volumes to computing, review open data part
Providing supporting material (folder) - dump pdfs for references there if internal documents
Deadline: 24th distribute to reviewers, 21st as "final version"
Consider Open Science Forum on DMP process and system development