TTA Tools: Thursday, 9 am MT, 11 am ET, 20 December 2018


CV-331/SO-152/GB-137, 331 Hub Audio 434-817-6286


  • Remaining Terminology Issues
  • VLA Configurations
  • RSRO Proposals
  • Any Remaining Major Issues
  • AOB


Attending: DanaBalser, AnandCrossley, JeffKern, MarkClaussen, AmyMioduszewski, LorantSjouwerman, StephanWitz, ToneyMinter

  • Remaining Terminology Issues
    • Proposal. We discussed what to call the information in section 4.1 which contains PI, title, abstract, scientific justification, etc. DanaBalser suggested "proposal information" which is the ALMA term. Other options were "proposal cover", "proposal cover sheet", and "general information". In the PST we use the term "general" but this does not include the authors or scientific justification. We were not converging so DanaBalser decided to use "proposal information".
    • Questions/comments from RyanLynch who could not attend the meeting.
      • Allocation Type: Can we have a DDT and filler proposal? Yes.
      • Allocation Target: There should be a way to have a list of sources with a set of front-end/back-end. Agreed.
      • Allocation Target: What does spectral setup mean for pulsar, continuum, and radar? The spectral setup for these back-ends is the frequency information (e.g., center frequency, bandwidth).
      • Allocation Target: We need to allow for user-provided instruments. Agreed.
      • Allocation Constraints: Could there be a case where the fixed dates are not know? Yes.
      • Allocation Constraints: Does "deltas" refer to "tolerances"? Yes and we should provide defaults.
      • The rms is not always the correct metric to derive the integration time. Agreed. We need a way to opt out of this with some justification.
    • Issues from LorantSjouwerman
      • Data Management Plan: what is meant by data size? We agreed that the software should estimate the data size for the raw data and SRDPs and list them. Any user generated products should have an estimated data size.
      • SRDP Specification: issues with some details (e.g., restoring beam). We agreed that in this document we should not be so specific and should modify the language.
      • Technical Review: should be at the allocation request level. Agreed.
      • Individual Reviews: reviewers should be able to see previous reviews. We agreed and currently this is done in a somewhat manual way. We need to deal with conflicts.
      • Individual Reviews: disagreement about the conditions when a reviewer can no longer edit the review. We agreed that this is more of a detail and we should be more general in this high level document.
  • VLA Configurations. LorantSjouwerman briefly summarized his logic. We disagreed about some of the details but agreed on the overall idea and this is all that is required for this high-level document.
  • RSRO Proposals. AmyMioduszewski was concerned that we do not mention RSRO proposals which are given an additional, internal review. We agreed to add a parameter to allocation category called RSRO. So the options are: open-sky, sponsored, or RSRO. Thus far all RSRO are open-sky so metrics can use the union of these two. At some level this is a policy decision. DanaBalser will inform LewisBall.
  • Actions
    1. LorantSjouwerman will convert his handwritten comments to typed comments and send to DanaBalser ASAP.
    2. DanaBalser will inform LewisBall of RSRO policy issue.
    3. DanaBalser will update the draft by next week.

-- DanaBalser - 2018-12-19

This topic: Software > TelescopeTimeAllocation > TTANewTools > TTAToolsMinute20Dec2018
Topic revision: 2018-12-20, 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