Return to top Contact Scientist Duties page here
- Macro use
- Forwarding P2G comments
- Status of Batch 2 and 3 HP projects.
- Batch 2 and 3 Fillers
- Batch 4 (C36-3 & -4)
- Batch 5 (C36-5, -6)
- Do you need help?
- You may edit the spreadsheet
- Major Change Requests: procedures 10. Cycle 2 duplications: procedures
1. Macro use
- A macro for "SB Ready Confirmation" is available for your use.
- For initial PI contact be sure to use the right macro. Only use those with "Cycle 3" in the name. Others are obsolete (HD staff: can we delete those?). Also be careful to use the correct HP vs FILLER version of the Cycle 3 macro.
2. Forwarding P2G comments
- When you add P2G comments/questions for the PI to read, please edit them to proper text instead of quoting the P2G verbatim (if necessary) and avoid/explain jargon that P2G may have used internally. Remember that PIs may have no idea what "!P2G" means either, so don't use the term unless you're sure they are familiar with it.
3. Batch 2 (projects using TP) and 3 (configs C36-1 & -2) HP projects.
- We're in pretty decent shape with batches 2 and 3 going into 2016. However we're not done.
- ==> please visit the google sheet and check columns E and F for action items for yourself. P2G should also check column G. here
- There are new headers for these columns to help you prioritize your effort, and red means priority action required. It may not be your action, but please check to make sure I'm tracking things correctly for those projects that are not yet fully approved.
- Please note that I have taken some simple actions on some tickets myself, to save folks time and bother during the AAS week. This is not a sign you're being tardy; indeed in some cases I'm doing this within minutes.
4. Batch 2 and 3 Fillers
- Our next priority is fillers for batch 2 and 3 because the configs required for batch 4 are some way off still. Most of these actions are for P2G. CSs can watch for projects that are ready for PI contact in column F.
5. Batch 4 (C36-3 & -4)
- Observations are scheduled to begin in April. We have been carrying a deadline of Feb 15 for completing PI approval of these, in part because we want them out of the way before the proposal season is on us, both for our own benefit and those of the proposers. I am going to extend this to March 15 since the CfP goes out on March 22.
- ==> please get started on these when you see that a project is ready for PI contact, which will show as green in column E. Some are in that state now.
- Even though PI approval by mid-April is still acceptable in terms of them not missing out on an observing opportunity, I recommend staying on top of your actions to get as many completed as possible by March 15. Do keep in mind that getting PI approval while they're writing proposals may be very difficult, even more than normal!
- Also, batch 2 & 3 experience demonstrates that we're not hitting our goals and some projects are still not getting approved until after the start of the relevant configuration. Let's avoid that happening for batch 4!
6. Batch 5 (C36-5, -6)
- I've relaxed this deadline to May 31 to give us breathing space after the proposal rush. Again, this is the deadline fort PI approval, not for SB generation. Observations start at the end of June so again there's some leeway for late-responding PIs and other interrupts. Some are ready now - why not get a head start?
7. Do you need help?
- Some CSs are not reacting to HD or SCOPS ticket emails as quickly as they might. The holidays are of course partly to blame for this last batch.
- ==> If you need help, because you're overloaded, not getting the tickets in your email, or not sure how to proceed, please let me know rather than let actions slip. I can take some actions for you, re-assign projects, etc., if necessary.
8. You may edit the spreadsheet
- This is not a requirement - just an option if useful to you. Do so in columns F or G if notes on project status would be useful for others to see without having to open tickets. Please do not delete any current text, just prepend or append to it. You should all have edit privileges.
9. Major Change Requests
- We've had a few of these. If you are uncertain how to handle the situation, ask Tony or I.
- ==> Please remember that the CS needs to carefully review a major CR from a PI to ensure it has all the information JAO needs to make the decision.
- The procedure is:
- PI asks for change in the SB preparation HD ticket. Occasionally a PI will submit a separate ticket, which triage will assign to the CS.
- CS discuses with P2G on the SCOPS ticket and together they decide if the change is major or minor. CS has final word if it's a bit ambiguous. See the guidelines: Change Requests
- If it's a major CR, the CS informs the PI and asks them to decide if they want to go ahead. Remind them of the process using the macro: Phase II Major Change Request ARC Reply.
- If they want to go ahead, they submit an HD ticket to the Proposal Change Request Submission (PCRS) Department, if they havent already done so.
- CS now reviews the request carefully. Does it contain all the information that JAO needs to make the decision? Is the case sound and convincing? If not, discuss with PI.
- CS approves the CR for forwarding to JAO, as a note on the PCRS ticket. Replies to PI that the CR is being forwarded to JAO.
- HD triage moves the request to the Proposal Change Request Department, which is visible to JAO.
10. Cycle 2 duplications
- Some projects are known to be re-submissions of Cycle 1 or 2 projects. I have annotated the status of some of these in column G, but please check I got it correct. Do not rely on column C; it is autofilled and has incorrect information in some cases.
- Review the 2015 proposal and check what it states about being a re-submission. You may also have to dig into the text a bit and do your own comparison to the earlier proposal (Cycle 1 or 2) to verify which SBs are duplicates.
- Check on the observation, delivery and QA2-pass status of any potential true duplicate SBs. If you are unsure how to do this, ask myself or any one of the DRMs: Arielle, Jen or Mark.
- If there are any observed SBs that are still being processed, visit the SCOPS-DR ticket and assess their status. If it is already known that the SB will not pass QA2 then the Cycle 3 SB should be scheduled. If in doubt, or unsure when QA2 status will be known, ask one of the DRMs for assistance.
- Post a comment to the SCOPS-Phase II prep ticket stating the results of your investigation for each potentially duplicate SB.
- If there are any SBs that in your opinion need to be deleted from the Cycle 3 program on account of being successfully observed already, then you will need to contact the PI and explain this to them. You do not have to wait for the SCOPS-Phase II ticket to be fully prepared; indeed youll save P2G time if you do it before they prepare the SBs. Sample text is below.
- If there are SBs in doubt, eg. because theyve been observed but not QA2 assessed yet, then a similar message should be sent. I will review such cases and discuss with you what we should do wrt scheduling the Cycle 3 SBs.
- To do this, open a new ticket as usual, but do not use one of the standard macros. Use text similar to the example below, adapted as suitable for the specific circumstances.
- Await the PIs reply. They may disagree that the Cycle 3 data are duplications. Or they may decide to submit a QA3 request if they believe the earlier data do not meet requirements (do not suggest this please).
- The next steps obviously depend on what the PI says. Consult me if you have questions.
- Example HD ticket text for projects with potential SB duplications:
Dear < PI name >,
I have been assigned as your Contact Scientist for your Cycle 3 project <2015.1.0xxxx.S> to assist you with any questions you may have about your project. We will communicate through this helpdesk ticket. To do so, use the link at the very bottom of this ticket to log into the Helpdesk and post a reply.
I understand that < one / two /
/ all of > the Science Goals of <2015.1.0xxxx.S> are duplications of Cycle <1 / 2> observations from your project <201x.1.0xxxx.S> and therefore we may not need to schedule the Cycle 3 SBs for these science goals.
< SBs < X, Y, Z
> are successfully delivered, QA2-pass, Cycle < 1 / 2 > observations from your project < 201x.1.0xxxx.S > and therefore we are not planning to schedule the Cycle 3 SBs for these science goals. >
< SBs < X, Y, Z
> are successfully observed Cycle < 1 / 2> observations from your project < 201x.1.0xxxx.S > that are currently undergoing data processing. Therefore at this time we do not know whether these data will pass QA2 and consequently whether they will need to be re-scheduled in Cycle 3.>
Would you kindly confirm that these Cycle 3 Science Goals are in fact duplications of successfully < observed / QA2-pass delivered > SBs from your previous project?
< We will discuss the planning for possible re-observation of SBs that have not yet been QA2-assessed after we have your confirmation on the status of your < 201x.1.0xxxx.S > program. >
Thank you very much for your help,
< name >