Policy about how time should be allocated. DanaBalser reported that LewisBall stated that time (instead of sensitivity) should be allocated and this should be the total time (including overhead). So no change from the current approach.
Projects:DanaBalser summarized the concept of Projects that are used by the VLA and ALMA. A Project contains one proposal, any review information, scheduling blocks, execution blocks, etc. LorantSjouwerman and AmyMioduszewski noted, however, that in practice the VLA does not work this way. That is, a Proposal comes first, and if accepted, a Project is created. There were several examples given that caused problems with the approach adopted by ALMA. RyanLynch noted that there are many proposals submitted under the umbrella of NanoGrav which might be considered one project. How does one deal with external proposals (e.g., Chandra)? MarkClaussen reported that he enters these into the OPT directly. StephanWitz noted that it would be useful to have some information about the proposal (e.g., title, PI, abstract, etc.). ToneyMinter reported that there is a single NanoGrav proposal that is part open-sky time and part sponsored time. These two components have to be tracked properly because there is a contract with payments. JeffKern suggested that this may be handled with the concept of different Science Goals.
Proposals: We then discussed what defines a proposal. BarryClark had suggested that we think of a proposal more generically with attributes. For example, a proposal that includes VLA and VLBA time (an AUI Joint proposal) now consists of two proposal IDs. Another approach is to have a single Proposal with attributes that include the VLA and VLBA. This would also encompass external facilities (e.g., HST) and Sponsored proposals. Along these lines a Proposal could be created that could have one or more Projects (e.g., A VLA project and a VLBA project). JeffKern asked if this could be handled by the concept of a Science Goal. That is, a VLA Science Goal and a VLBA Science Goal. LorantSjouwerman thought that a Science Goal is not a Project but a recipe to get data products. This is clearly different than ALMA. JeffKern did not think this would cause an problems for science ready data products (SRDPs). There was a brief discussion about how the the VLA works. AmyMioduszewski said that Projects are divided up into Program Blocks which may contain, for example, different array configurations. These appear to be similar to an Observing Unit Sets (OUS) in ALMA. JeffKern emphasized that if we depart from ALMA's model we have to have a good reason. So why start with Proposals->Projects? Many on the committee felt that it would better handle (1) multi-AUI-telescopes proposals (e.g., VLA and VLBA); (2) proposals submitted by other tools (Chandra, Global VLBI, etc.); and (3) proposals that allocate funds differently (open-sky versus sponsored). Furthermore, it seems more logical for keeping AUI metrics to use the "Proposal ID" as the top-level identifier and then create projects below this level (e.g., by telescope, etc.).
StephanWitz will attempt to get a test version of the ALMA OT running so the committee can better explore how ALMA works.