added response letter #163
Conversation
|
Is the Response Letter title appropriate for this update? I think this is needed for the website - just the Response Letter is something different to me. |
|
Pilot3_response_to_fda.pdf Thanks, @SHAESEN2 for starting this off. All, if you have a chance to review this letter, please comment or approve your review by EOD tomorrow (or today if your in EU timezone). I am contemplating whether or not remove the comment 1 feedback and response as this was more of just referencing other sources from past R consortium discussions or other on-line research. Let me know what you guys think. I know I've update this response letter as now a developer instead of reviewer, but @SHAESEN2 if the updated letter sounds, looks good to you, I can approve review on my end. Just comment here as such. Thanks all. Let's wrap this up. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @laxamanaj can you make sure that the text wraps on the page? In the posit cloud editor you will see a line in the console indicating the end of a page. It does not seem an issue when I render in the posit cloud but I had issues on our internal linux R system.
|
No further comments ! Looks good :) Thanks @laxamanaj |
Co-authored-by: Ben Straub <ben.x.straub@gsk.com>
updated Co-authored-by: Ben Straub <ben.x.straub@gsk.com>
Co-authored-by: Ben Straub <ben.x.straub@gsk.com>
Merge branch '149-explore-differences' of github.com:RConsortium/submissions-pilot3-adam into 149-explore-differences # Conflicts: # vignettes/response-FDA IR-pilot3.qmd
This is updated now, @SHAESEN2 . Thanks. |
Closes issue #149