Thursday, 9 am MT, 11 am ET, 7 January 2021


NRAO Zoom 05


  • 21B
    • CfPs (Dana)
    • PST/PHT Review Tickets Status (Rick)
    • SRP Recruitment (Mark C., Amy)
  • Scheduling Priority C Minus (Barry)
  • AOB


Attending: DanaBalser, RickLively, HeidiMedlin, ToneyMinter, EmmanuelMomjian, BarryClark, TrishHenning, AnandCrossley, AmyMioduszewski, MarkClaussen

  • 21B
    • CfPs. There were several PST issues noticed by DanaBalser and LorantSjouwerman before the release; otherwise everyhting went smoothly.
      • VLA Data Rates: We need to check that the data rates are being calculated correctly. RickLively reported that there is a ticket for this item.
      • 4/P-band: This is really two resources and the PST only supports one resource. We therefore need to clarify the requirements. RickLively reported that there is a ticket for this item.
      • VLA Resources: We need to evaluate in general how resources are implemented for the VLA; there may be some minor changes that can make the code a bit more robust. RickLively will create a ticket.
      • GMVA Technical Justification: We agreed that the validation should check that an EVN calculator graphic is attached (like for the VLBA). Currently this is not the case and was not orignially a requriement. MarkClaussen will create a ticket.
    • PST/PHT Review Tickets Status. RickLively will send around an epic ticket. He plans to start on SSA-6776 first. There should be a release on webtest for testing in a couple of weeks.
    • SRP Recruitment. MarkClaussen reported that there are three vacancies: 1 HIZ, 1 SFM, and 1 PCO. AmyMioduszewski reported that people are not responding to her emails; she is having a hard time with an x-ray binary person for PCO.
  • Scheduling Priority C Minus. BarryClark noted that there are frequently DDT proposals that are okay to do but we do not want them to displace active approved proposals. Currently, we effectively give these a C- priority but are not really transparent to the PI. He suggests we be more formal. AmyMioduszewski sumamrized the process for the VLA. We used to give these "C-" proposals a linear-rank score of 10, but since the weight of the linear-rank score is so low in the scheduling algorithm there was little difference from a "C". Now we now effectively give the proposal a "D" priority (overide). We do not inform the PI, however, that they are receiveing a C-. ToneyMinter summarized the process for the GBT. The linear-rank score is not used by the scheduling algorithm, but there are +/- values that can be attached to the priorities (e.g., C-). Moreover, the PI is informed of the priority in the disposition letter. There was some concern that proposals with C- do not get scheduled. There are no statistics on whether these propsoasl are scheduled and they would be difficult to produce. The scheduler does inform the DDT committee about the chances of success. We agreed that if the DDT committee effectively gives a C- to a proposal that we should be transparent in the disposition letter. We did not converge on whether we should explicitly list "C-" in the disposition letter, or to just list "C" with text explaining how the project will be scheduled. Being explicit and listing "C-" may stand out better in the disposition letter, but there may be confusion since "C-" is not an official priority (e.g., "C-" is not included in our documentation). We will continue the discussion at the next TTA meeting.
  • AOB
    • SOFIA: ToneyMinter reported that three joint GBO-SOFIA proposals were accepted by the SOFIA TAC. DanaBalser encouraged that the folks from SOFIA use the joint-proposals email list.

-- DanaBalser - 2020-12-28
Topic revision: r6 - 2021-01-07, DanaBalser
This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding NRAO Public Wiki? Send feedback