Up: Minutes of the 1st Previous: Monday am

Minutes of the Monday Afternoon Discussion

Karen O.

Let's start by going on with what Bob Brown suggested this morning. Consider that we need to decide on the following:

Organizational diagram
Procedures to nominate and elect coordinators (including consortia membership)
Working toward the "white paper"
Meeting minutes
Next meeting
Other?

I suggest that we make the following modifications to the organizational diagram:

change "leader" to "coordinator"
possibly add representatives to parallel surveys to science strategies
break science into 5 groups according to the 5 kinds of surveys

Does anyone have any comments?

Martha Isn't what you added as "representatives" fall under what was referred to before as "synergies?

Brent I think the follow-up science goes into science?

Riccardo That may not be a good idea. Otherwise there will be 20 people in a single working group. Of course, all the different subgroups need to talk to each other. I am concerned about any one subgroup being to large to be able to function in practical terms.

Steve Maybe we could lump together follow-up science and synergy to "broader connections"?

Noah Sometimes we need to know about "pre-coveries", that is, work before the discoveries.

Brent It seems to me that everything alongs those lines comes under sciences and strategies.

Riccardo How big is the coordinating committee going to be? Is it open?

Karen O. The idea is to have the coordinators rotate among people regularly.

Riccardo I would advise against personalizing the surveys at this point. There may be other surveys that pop up or other people who are not here who become very involved. At some stage, we will probably have to prioritize the surveys. It would be better if we don't have to attach names of individuals to the science surveys at this point.

Karen O. But we are all here, having this meeting now, and it makes sense to assign names because names would be useful in identifying who is doing what.

Steve Let's not get hung up on whether the steering committee is made up of the coordinators of the surveys or not. Right now, we need to concentrate on producing this document.

Riccardo It would be unwise then not to have representatives of each survey subcommittee in the steering coomittee. Otherwise, who would report on activities of each subgroup?

Karen O. We will go with 5 boxes under science, one for each of the surveys. I still would like to have one person in charge of each.

Martha Why don't we just use the 5 people who presented this morning to represent the surveys?

Karen O. Let's also follow the lead of pulsar consortium, by letting others participate. We should say that nothing we decide is final. Rather, we can call for open nominations for a 2 week period so that others can participate.

Martha What is meant by being a "coordinator"?
Jonathan Why can't we try to make progress on this now, since we are all here?

Further suggested changes to organization

Several other changes to the structure were suggested and it was agreed to:

Also consortium membership, outreach and organization
Add a section on funding

Wim

I don't understand the issue about US funding. We in Europe also want to try to get block funding.

Martha

In this country, PI funding is a problem due to the way we are funded. We can get telescope time but not have the money to do the observations or reduce the data because, for ground based astronomy, as opposed to space-based, the two are not linked. Also it is hard sometimes to get funding to do the preparatory work, like software development, especially because, under other circumstances, the observatory would be expected to provide the software. NAIC can help potentially by trying to get NSF to commit funds to support these surveys, not just the observing and science analysis, but the other parts too. How university astronomers and their students are funded is a very important issue for us. This white paper is a document written for NAIC which is a US national organization. While this issue may not be relevant to those of you outside the US, it should be part of our white paper for that reason.

Volunteers

It was agreed to establish subcommittees that would develop the sections of the white paper according to the following breakdown. Individuals were encouraged to volunteer to participate and the names below include those who volunteered during the meeting. Others are welcome to join any of these subgroups.

Subcommittee	Participants
Science justification	Lister, Jess, Liese, Steve, Trish
Science strategies:	ditto
Data products Phase I :	Riccardo, Christian
Algorithms, source extraction:	Martha, Steve, Jon, Erwin
Phase II data products:	Martha, Lyle
Archive & Access:	Martha
Followup Observations:	Noah, Wim
Synergy:	Trish, Riccardo, Mary
Organization & Outreach:	Karen O., Martha & Alison
Funding, NSF & Euro:	Liese, Wim, Martha

Editorial note: A revision of this structure by the Steering Committee was circulated on March 25th.

It was then proposed to elect an interim steering committee of 3 people: 1 from outside the US, 1 US but not necessarily with close NAIC experience, and 1 close to NAIC. This steering committee would be charged with coordinating and editting the production of the white paper. Nominations were taken from the group as follows:

Non-US US

Lister Karen O.

Wim Riccardo

Steve

In the end, it was noted that Karen O., Riccardo and Steve were all close to NAIC, so there should be no distinction among them for the 2 US candidates. It was decided that everyone could cast 3 votes, for 1 of the non-US candidates and 2 of the US/NAIC.

Non-US	US
Lister	Karen O.
Wim	Riccardo
	Steve

The vote was taken over the coffee break. Then the meeting resumed.

Karen O. It has been suggested by someone that we not count votes, but rather just keep all five.

Liese In my experience, bigger groups are often less effective.

Steve There is a big quantitative difference between 5! versus 3! Let's count the votes.

Steering Commitee Vote Results:

The Interim E-ALFA Steering committee will consist of Lister, Riccardo and Steve.

Minutes

Karen O. We need meeting minutes. Karen Masters, Kristine Spekkens and Martha Haynes have been taking notes and have volunteered to produce minutes of the meeting as a record.

Martha We'd also like to get copies of all the talks. And we have tried to include questions, comments, and we'd like to give everyone a chance to correct us.

Next meeting

It was agreed that the next meeting should take place sometime in the fall of 2003, preferably over a weekend, in an economical location. Bob Brown indicated that there might be some NAIC funding for US participants to attend the next meeting.

Alternate Backends?

Lister This relates to a conversation I had with Jim Cordes. The Pulsar folks proposing to build a 300 MHz system with quite low frequency resolution but with a fast dump rate using FPGA technology. It may be possible to increase the number of channels with 8 bit; this might be just the right solution for the high redshift surveys. These would be off the shelf devices, not hand-made chips. There may however be implementation issues causing delay and cannot be parallel with the pulsar plans. However, this would be very good for robust sample.

Mary But do we still have the 100 MHz system on day 1?

Jim The up-front cost of this is the design. Building a system is not particularly tough. However, there would be a big issue regarding having a group writing software. But there is a possibility on the long term of having 2 machines. A decision is likely this month as to who might build this FPGA spectrometer.

Riccardo Is there an option to have 2 constructed if they are built outside NAIC?

Jim It is possible.

Lister Interference mitigation is extremely important. WAPPS can do mitigation.

Jim The design for FPGA is FFT based.

Steve It would also be nice to have a horizon looking system for the 8th feed. That would place additional needs on the correlator.

Lister We do not have enough correlator to do that in HIPASS but tests show promise.

Desh An 8th WAPP could be produced. We cannot do cross correlation between different beams but we could crosscorrelate the 8th beam.

Lister You really need 2 extra beams, 2 polarizations. To get closure, you need 3 baselines.

Desh In principle.

Ed How soon will we know about the outer beams?

Riccardo There already is a model by German Cortes. The sidelobes are 8 dB down.

Up: Minutes of the 1st Previous: Monday am

This page created and maintained by Karen Masters, Kristine Spekkens and Martha Haynes.

Last modified: Thu Apr 24 11:56:27 EDT 2003

Martha	Isn't what you added as "representatives" fall under what was referred to before as "synergies?
Brent	I think the follow-up science goes into science?
Riccardo	That may not be a good idea. Otherwise there will be 20 people in a single working group. Of course, all the different subgroups need to talk to each other. I am concerned about any one subgroup being to large to be able to function in practical terms.
Steve	Maybe we could lump together follow-up science and synergy to "broader connections"?
Noah	Sometimes we need to know about "pre-coveries", that is, work before the discoveries.
Brent	It seems to me that everything alongs those lines comes under sciences and strategies.
Riccardo	How big is the coordinating committee going to be? Is it open?
Karen O.	The idea is to have the coordinators rotate among people regularly.
Riccardo	I would advise against personalizing the surveys at this point. There may be other surveys that pop up or other people who are not here who become very involved. At some stage, we will probably have to prioritize the surveys. It would be better if we don't have to attach names of individuals to the science surveys at this point.
Karen O.	But we are all here, having this meeting now, and it makes sense to assign names because names would be useful in identifying who is doing what.
Steve	Let's not get hung up on whether the steering committee is made up of the coordinators of the surveys or not. Right now, we need to concentrate on producing this document.
Riccardo	It would be unwise then not to have representatives of each survey subcommittee in the steering coomittee. Otherwise, who would report on activities of each subgroup?
Karen O.	We will go with 5 boxes under science, one for each of the surveys. I still would like to have one person in charge of each.
Martha	Why don't we just use the 5 people who presented this morning to represent the surveys?
Karen O.	Let's also follow the lead of pulsar consortium, by letting others participate. We should say that nothing we decide is final. Rather, we can call for open nominations for a 2 week period so that others can participate.
Martha	What is meant by being a "coordinator"?
Jonathan	Why can't we try to make progress on this now, since we are all here?

Karen O.	It has been suggested by someone that we not count votes, but rather just keep all five.
Liese	In my experience, bigger groups are often less effective.
Steve	There is a big quantitative difference between 5! versus 3! Let's count the votes.

Karen O.	We need meeting minutes. Karen Masters, Kristine Spekkens and Martha Haynes have been taking notes and have volunteered to produce minutes of the meeting as a record.
Martha	We'd also like to get copies of all the talks. And we have tried to include questions, comments, and we'd like to give everyone a chance to correct us.

Lister	This relates to a conversation I had with Jim Cordes. The Pulsar folks proposing to build a 300 MHz system with quite low frequency resolution but with a fast dump rate using FPGA technology. It may be possible to increase the number of channels with 8 bit; this might be just the right solution for the high redshift surveys. These would be off the shelf devices, not hand-made chips. There may however be implementation issues causing delay and cannot be parallel with the pulsar plans. However, this would be very good for robust sample.
Mary	But do we still have the 100 MHz system on day 1?
Jim	The up-front cost of this is the design. Building a system is not particularly tough. However, there would be a big issue regarding having a group writing software. But there is a possibility on the long term of having 2 machines. A decision is likely this month as to who might build this FPGA spectrometer.
Riccardo	Is there an option to have 2 constructed if they are built outside NAIC?
Jim	It is possible.
Lister	Interference mitigation is extremely important. WAPPS can do mitigation.
Jim	The design for FPGA is FFT based.
Steve	It would also be nice to have a horizon looking system for the 8th feed. That would place additional needs on the correlator.
Lister	We do not have enough correlator to do that in HIPASS but tests show promise.
Desh	An 8th WAPP could be produced. We cannot do cross correlation between different beams but we could crosscorrelate the 8th beam.
Lister	You really need 2 extra beams, 2 polarizations. To get closure, you need 3 baselines.
Desh	In principle.
Ed	How soon will we know about the outer beams?
Riccardo	There already is a model by German Cortes. The sidelobes are 8 dB down.