Thursday, 9 am MT, 11 am ET, 15 October 2020


NRAO Zoom 05



Attending: DanaBalser, ToneyMinter, MarkClaussen, BarryClark, EmmanuelMomjian, AnandCrossley, RickLively, AmyMioduszewski, LorantSjouwerman

  • 21A
    • TAC Meeting
      • Agenda. DanaBalser reported that the TAC has signed off on the agenda. There are three short periods where a TAC member will not be available but otherwise there should be no major schedduling issues.
      • Materials. DanaBalser reported that the VLA and VLBA materials have been completed and uploaded to the secure Wiki. ToneyMinter said he would have some materials ready soon for the GBT; delays were caused by internet problems. DanaBalser will send the email to the TAC today pointing them to the updated materials. MarkClaussen and AmyMioduszewski will create presentations for the VLBA (and HSA/GMVA) and the VLA, respectively. We discussed three additional items:
        1. GMVA and ALMA. There are scheduling implications for the GMVA becaause of the ALMA shutdown. MarkClaussen will discuss these during his HSA/GMVA presentation.
        2. HSA and Arecibo. There are no 21A HSA proposals that include Arecibo as a station, but there is at least one GBT 21A GBT proposal that will trigger off of Arecibo observations. ToneyMinter has inquired about the status of Arecibo vis-a-vis HSA but has not heard back. This will be included in the GBT information to the TAC.
        3. SOFIA Technical Review. ToneyMinter reported that he did receive the technical review from SOFIA for the one joint proposal. This review was not received before the SRP meetings but will be included for the TAC meeting.
      • Large Proposal Policy. DanaBalser summarized three issues that will almost certainly be brought up by the TAC chair during the TAC meeting.
        1. Data Management Plan. In the past the TAC requested that we do a better job of following up with authors that do not deliver what they propose (e.g., produce web site with data products). We collect Large proposal reports once per year and have now added the GBT. The TAC can respond during the TAC meeting and we will follow up with the PI.
        2. Large Proposal Status. If the TAC approves only a subset of the total time which is less than the cutoff for Large proposals then does this become a Regular proposal? Currently we do not have a specific policy. Both DanaBalser and MarkClaussen felt that if the proposal was submitted as Large, and that was the intent, then the proposal should be considered Large thoughout the process. LorantSjouwerman noted that this can be cumbersome when the TAC asks the PI to perform multiple pilot programs.
        3. Multiple Regular Proposals. Some teams will submit multiple Regular proposals over several semesters for essentially the same project that will add up to a Large project. Should this be allowed? MarkClaussen felt there is a risk in this approach due to SRP fatique, but that we should not mandate that the PI submit a Large proposal. DanaBalser agreed; sometimes a project will evolve from small to large naturally. BarryClark said that if the SRP complains that we should pass this on to the authors (e.g., SRP or TAC comments). EmmanuelMomjian said that some authors do not have the resources to meet the demands of a Large proposal and that we should allow authors some flexibility.
  • Proposal Metric Issues. AnandCrossley reporte some progress on the VLA metrics. We should be able to populate the PST database with PHT data. There were some cases where both databases appeared to be wrong with respect to the disposition letter. Most of these issues are with older semesters but we need to make sure there are no problems with future semesters.
  • Historical Large/Triggered VLBA Proposals. MarkClaussen reported no action.
  • AOB
    • PackTrack: AnandCrossley said while fielding a password reset ticket a user requested info on PackTrack. MarkClaussen noted that this was program to track media (e.g., disk packs) for the VLBA. AnandCrossley will transfer the ticket to MarkClaussen.
    • Webtest Login: LorantSjouwerman asked about the status of the account system on webtest. RickLively reported that they have not been able to solve this problem. Time is getting short since 21B developement begins on 1 November 2020 and we need the accounts to be working for testing. If there is no progress within a week we need to develope a plan B. He will update us in one week.

-- DanaBalser - 2020-10-09
Topic revision: r4 - 2020-10-15, 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