User Helpdesk Tickets. LorantSjouwerman reported that we had a handful of tickets over the past week with no major issues. There was the known issue were sometimes a user cannot edit a technical justification textbox. He thinks this may be related to the PST timing out before the text is saved. He will create a ticket for 21B and we will discuss this during the 21B prioritization meeting. MarkClaussen noted that this problem is somewhat rare. AnandCrossley reported that we had more account tickets this week but he has resvolved all of these tickets. One major issue: a proposer could not submit a proposal because they did not have a phone number in their profile. The behavior is expected but the problem was that they could not update their profile. RickLively said this was because there was an odd character in the gender field; this now matters since we pick up this new field that was added recently. He fixed all odd characters in the database so this does not happen again.
PST Review Tickets Status. RickLively reported that he is done with development. We briefly discussed SSA-5780 Bugs when assigning conflicts for reviewers which requires additional testing before we release. Several items:
If the chair assigns reviews before conflicts have been accepted, this causes confusion for the user as they see the Review Type on My Reviews (Primary, etc.) but can't actually edit a review (which is correct, since it's a conflict). This has not been fixed; RickLively will split this item off to a separate ticket for work in 21B.
When an Admin adds a conflict in the Review Page, it sets the Reviews complete flag in the db which is used to indicate that all the reviews for a reviewer are complete. RickLively and DanaBalser have tested this and the fix appears to work. RickLively will follow up to check if a PST-admin has to close out all of the Review Types = None before normalizing the scores.
Technically an SRP chair can assign reviewers to proposals before they have declared their conflicts. This causes confusion. RickLivey modified the software to stop an SRP chair from assigning reviewers to proposals using the UI, but they can assign reviewers if using the export/import feature (they will at least get a pop up warning). DanaBalser will test this using the AGN SRP for semesters 19B on webtest.
NAOC as sponsor in PST. DanaBalser summarized the issue: the GBO would like to add a new Sponsor (NAOC) in the PST asap (proposals could be submitted by NAOC as early as Tuesday, 4 August 2020). RickLivey felt we should not do a release until after the deadline (3 August 2020). We discussed the timing of events. After the deadline there is a period of cleanup and we typcially do not move to the next stage (Assigning Reviewers) until the next day. We need to move to this stage before we can vet science categories. We could release the reviews items, which we have to do anyhow, and add NAOC sometime on Tuesday. As a backup, if necessary we could instruct NAOC to use a different Sponsor name and we just change this after the release.
Archival Proposals. DaleFrail summarized the issue. At the urging of our users ALMA NA plans to release two special calls for ALMA archival research and have suggested using the current NRAO SRP/TAC structure for the submission and review of ALMA archival proposals. The ALMA proposal system is internaltion and cannot be used for these strictly NA proposals. The exsiting student observing support (SOS) structure is currently used for both ALMA and NRAO and has hooks into the NRAO SRP/TAC structure, as well as committes that dole out funds. There was some discussion (mostly negative) but we agreed to follow up in more detail. The was some disagreemnet about the format (another meeting, using TTA email list, etc.), and we ran out of time before we converged on how best to discuss this topic. DaleFrail noted that this is really in the early stages and he wanted some intial feedback. If this goes to the next stage we would have to have deeper discussions. DanaBalser will email folks with a proposal on how to move forward after the meeting.
Historical Large/Triggered VLBA Proposals. We did not discuss this item.