Thursday, 9 am MT, 11 am ET, 10 August 2017


CV-331/AOC-152/GB-bsm, 331 Hub Audio 434-817-6286



Attending: ToneyMinter, DanaBalser, LewisBall, JaredCrossley, BarryClark, RickLively, HeidiMedlin, LorantSjouwerman, MarkClaussen, AmyMioduszewski, JessicaUtley

  • 18A
    • Release Proposals for Review. Proposals were released for individual review on Monday. There were some issues with the technical review release. The cues for the technical review were not updated (e.g., the new lst/gst textbox was not included). A few other textbox cues were also missing from changes in previous semesters. The "show technical justification" button on the review page was also missing the lst/gst info. The GBT reviewers on HSA proposals missing but this was quickly remedied. JessicaUtley discussed the difficulty in scheduling the telecon for the NGA SRP. The plan is to first contact the chair to expand the number days available with a last resort of moving the telecon into the following week.
  • 18B
    • TTA Update Proposal. The following main points were discussed:
      • Fewer SRP Members: GarethHunt proposed (via email) that we consider having fewer than 5 SRP members when the number of proposals is < 25. It seems best to have at least 5 SRP members to have the breath of experience and that we do not want the number of proposals to go below 20 to maintain good statistics.
      • Issues to Solve: MarkClaussen noted that the proposal only addressed issue (1) and not (2) or (3). We had many discussions about (2), telescope imbalance, in the past and there did not appear to be any good solution. Issue (3), SRP categories too broad, does not seem to be a significant problem. Our biggest problem is (1), SRP imbalance.
      • Option 1 or 2: We were somewhat split on which was the best option but generally agreed that each had it good and bad points. ToneyMinter was concerned that option 2 does not allow input from all reviewers which is the point of the telecons. This becomes a bigger problem is one of the readers has an outlier score. We could allow the SRP chair to communicate with the reader before the telecon to get more input, but we felt this should not be done during the telecon. One might also allow the reader to optionally attend the telecon. It might be good to track the statistics for proposals with readers to make sure they perform the same as those without readers. LewisBall thought the advantages of option 2 to help with recruitment outweighed the disadvantages that not everyone will have a say during the telecon. We also need to fold in software effort. RickLively suggested this would be maybe 1-2 weeks of software effort but recommended we create a JIRA ticket so he can better estimate effort.
      • New Categories/Keywords: AmyMioduszewski felt that the proposal really did not solve the problem and that it would be better to just have new science categories that were better balanced. The downside is that this effects software downstream (e.g., metrics) and may only be a temporary fix. BarryClark has suggested keywords to have more flexible in defining the categories but this creates extra work in defining the SRPs. The keyword concept, however, worked well before we has SRPs.

-- DanaBalser - 2017-07-31
Topic revision: r3 - 2017-08-10, 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