One of the biggest issues is that data flow well between phase 1 to phase 2 (e.g PST to OPT for the VLA).
We need to think about the need for new "scheduling tools" for the TAC process (e.g., prioritizer for the VLA).
We should not "design out" any implications of a possible move to an ALMA style distributed review process. For example, we may need to include keywords.
An issue with the scheduling priority (e.g., A, B, C) vis-a-vis not receiving the time necessary to complete the project. This goes back to the flag for acceptability of partial time allocation.
A question about what QA means for SRDPs if time is allocated instead of a sensitivity.
GB Staff (Meeting held on 10 April 2019)
We need to make sure that any changes to the hardware can be updated without significant effort (e.g., no need to recompile).
We should discuss if weather scheduling parameters (see DSS Project Note 10) should be set at the proposal stage or during scheduling.
We need to consider the impact on current GBT specific software tools.
GB PHT. We should discuss the relative merits of keeping the GB PHT with modifications versus software that manages the proposal handling for all telescopes.
GB DSS. There are plans to investigate a new algorithm since the original design assumed most of the time would be open sky. The development of any new algorithm should be coordinated with the new TTA software suite.
SO Staff (Meeting held on 07 May 2019)
We need to think about how to handle commensal observing projects.
We should think about a common definition of terms vis-a-vis ALMA, SKA, etc.
SRDP-331 VLA configuration specification too fuzzy (Kepley):AmandaKepley and AmyKimball felt that you may not know anything about the source and therefore it would be better to specify the synthesized beam and largest angular size (LAS). AmandaKepley recommended that we should talk with ALMA folks since this is interpreted differently at different stages (e.g., scheduler, QA). We agreed to rethink this approach at the next stage (L1 documents) with a view to making it more quantitative,
SRDP-359 Question regarding Multi-frequency VLA Project (Kimball):AmyKimball was uncertain if this would be a single allocation request. We had a fairly wide-ranging discussion about how to structure an allocation request and the strategy that we should recommend. A general rule of thumb is that if you have a multi-frequency project, for example, then if you need both frequencies to do the science then both frequencies should go into a single allocation request; otherwise you should create two allocation request. The intent is that there will be a single scheduling priority assigned to each allocation request. The allocation award may exclude some portion of the allocation request (e.g., LST exclusion), but the TAC should not re-write the proposal. AmyKimball provided another example of a large survey with many sources. These could be put into one allocation request but the user may want to divide them into multiple allocation requests. AmandaKepley suggested we include some better use cases. JohnTobin and AmyKimball suggested that the proposer specify if they need all the time (the infamous checkbox). LewisBall noted that this has been discussed many times and has been rejected, but structurally we want to have this type of information available to the reviewers.
SRDP-360 Question regarding allocation restraints for multiple hour angles (Kimball): We agreed that we need a text box to capture any unanticipated constraints. For the specific case of a snapshot survey with observations at multiple hour angles we could add something that is machine readable if this is a common request.
SRDP-374 Why is 'Sponsored' an allocation type? (Clark):DanaBalser noted that we specify if a proposal is Sponsored since there have been proposals that are part Sponsored and part open-sky. BarryClark was unhappy with a mixed proposal since it may cause problems downstream (e.g., data archive). LewisBall noted that this is more of a policy decision and we should take this up offline.
SRDP-375 Trigger & other complex constraints (Clark): Two issues: (1) How to organize the Trigger proposal example. This is similar to SRDP-359. DanaBalser and JeffKern noted that if both the triggered observation and follow up are necessary to do the science then there should be one allocation request; otherwise there could be two allocation requests. BarryClark noted that there are often many triggerers and follow up observations, so we might want a way to tie them together. (2) Complex constraints and the need for irregular integration times. We agreed that we should add irregular integration times.
SRDP-376 Let's just call it 'On Source Time' (Clark):LorantSjouwerman suggested "Total On Source Time". DanaBalser and JeffKern discussed that the plan is for software to derive the overhead and therefore determine the total allocation request time (wall-clock time). The user will be able to override this time but it will then not be considered for SPRD.
SRDP-379 Reviewer filter (Clark):DanaBalser felt that it would still be useful to know which telescopes were being requested a this stage. LewisBall noted that it was really a reviewer/staff feature.
SRDP-380 Should reviewers provide scores or ranking (Clark):BarryClark prefers a rank instead of a score. DanaBalser felt that a score was better at the individual review stage but that at the consensus review stage a rank made more sense. LewisBall felt that normalization is easier with scores at the individual review stage. AmandaKepley felt that rankings could produce more bias than scores. BarryClark felt that rankings were more robust and less prone to error.
SRDP-384 Time of day constraints for VLBA (Brisken): We will discuss offline.
SRDP-386 Proposal capture for multiple phase centers for VLBI observing (Brisken): We will discuss offline.
SRDP-387 Where to capture proprietary period (Brisken): We will discuss offline.
SRDP-401 External requests (Barry):_ BarryClark felt that the information included for the chair's summary, which includes a Y/N if this is a joint external request, was not useful but information about the external facility and requested time were more appropriate. DanaBalser noted that the chair's summary (a csv file) had evolved based on feedback from the chairs and here they just wanted to know if there was an external request. JeffKern felt that we may want to provide something different under the new structure.