Science Program. GustaafVanMoorsel, BarryClark, and DanaBalser have spot checked the VLA csv file. There are some issues with a few proposals, particularly the carryover proposals. GustaafVanMoorsel and BarryClark will check these. MarkClaussen will check the VLBA csv file soon. ToneyMinter has provided an updated GBT csv file. Carryover and sponsored proposals were discussed. We want to include proposals from previous semesters (carryover) and sponsored proposals that will be executed in 16A. This is a little difficult for the VLBA and GBT where priority A, 15B proposals may get time in 16A but this is not yet known in some cases. We agreed to just make the best estimate possible at this time.
Transfer Letters/Time to PST; Public Bit. We typically wait until the dust settles before we transfer data to the PST in case any of the decisions are changed. ClaireChandler has one HSA proposal that needs to be discussed by the director so we will wait on pulling the trigger. There was some discussion about getting disposition letters into the PST for Sponsored proposals. It would be nice to have the script that updates the time and public bit for DDT proposals to include disposition letters. For 16A we will just send RickLively a file so he can do this manually. It was also noted that it would be good if the PHT set the public bit. For some proposals where data is transferred to the PST multiple times the precommitted time is overwritten and thus incorrect. We think the process should work correctly for GMVA proposals; the priority is set in the PHT.
Technical Reviews. We discussed the policy change made in 16A for the VLA/VLBA where technical reviews were not performed for proposals that requested less than 20 hours. This did save a significant amount of work for the staff. From a technical perspective there were a few of those not reviewed that had issues (ClaireChandler checked them), with the typical problem being that the correlator was not optimally configured but the science could do done. Only a couple were requested to be reviewed by the SRP or TAC. BarryClark suggested this may be extra work for the user if the project could not be done. He suggested a checkbox to give the user some flexibility. Others thought this might confuse the user. Should we adopt this policy for the GBT? This was discussed in the GB scientific staff meeting with no convergence. The plan for 16B is to keep the same policy as we had 16A. We need to update the software to handle this in the PST, however, since we had to manually update the database.
PST Status. We did not get to this item.
PST Review Requirements. DavidFrayer summarized the issues. After some discussion we converged on a list of priorities (see below). We ran out of time so if there is any disagreement with the current list please email the TTA list.