Rubin2020_PCW slack archives day3-wed-slot2b-in-kind 2020-07-15---2020-08-14

Wed 2020-07-15 03:02PM
@Ranpal (she/her/hers) has joined the channel
Thu 2020-07-16 01:19PM
@Melissa Graham has joined the channel
Wed 2020-07-22 11:57AM
@Jeff Carlin has joined the channel
Thu 2020-07-23 05:40PM
@drphilmarshall has joined the channel
drphilmarshall Thu 2020-07-23 05:41PM
@drphilmarshall set the channel topic: Helping international in-kind proposal teams write good in-kind proposals. Second of two equivalent sessions.
drphilmarshall Thu 2020-07-23 05:46PM
This (Wednesday) session's page on the PCW website:
Thu 2020-07-23 05:48PM
@Robert Blum has joined the channel
Thu 2020-07-23 05:49PM
@Greg Madejski has joined the channel
Robert Blum Thu 2020-07-23 05:54PM
got it
Greg Madejski Thu 2020-07-23 05:54PM
Got it too
drphilmarshall Thu 2020-07-23 05:54PM
This is the early slot: 1030 PDT = 1930 CEST. The late slot is on Tuesday, at 1200 PDT = 2100 CEST. The Tuesday session Slack channel is #day2-tue-slot3b-in-kind
Thu 2020-07-30 11:52PM
@Yen-Chen Pan has joined the channel
Fri 2020-07-31 03:04AM
@Ilaria Musella has joined the channel
Fri 2020-07-31 08:06AM
@Elisa Chisari has joined the channel
Fri 2020-07-31 08:31AM
@Robert Szabo has joined the channel
Fri 2020-07-31 08:39PM
@Sara Lucatello has joined the channel
Sun 2020-08-02 02:53PM
@Rrichard McMahon has joined the channel
Mon 2020-08-03 11:40AM
@K-T Lim has joined the channel
Tue 2020-08-04 10:18AM
@ldacosta has joined the channel
Tue 2020-08-04 11:00AM
@Sebastian Bocquet has joined the channel
Tue 2020-08-04 02:24PM
@Nacho Sevilla has joined the channel
Wed 2020-08-05 04:52AM
@Tom J Wilson has joined the channel
Wed 2020-08-05 07:02AM
@David Buckley has joined the channel
Wed 2020-08-05 02:11PM
@M Temple has joined the channel
Wed 2020-08-05 02:52PM
@Merlin has joined the channel
drphilmarshall Thu 2020-08-06 02:07AM
Here's the Handbook for Proposal Teams - please take a look before the workshop, and we'll talk through it during the session!
Thu 2020-08-06 04:16PM
@Steve R has joined the channel
Thu 2020-08-06 04:16PM
@Knut Olsen has joined the channel
drphilmarshall Mon 2020-08-10 02:43PM
Workshop slides are now available for download in PDF format, from the session pages or directly from .
Chris Lintott Mon 2020-08-10 02:48PM
@drphilmarshall or others - I failed to sign up in time - can I come along anyway?
Amanda Bauer Mon 2020-08-10 02:48PM
Yes, please come along anyway! @Chris Lintott
Chris Lintott Mon 2020-08-10 02:49PM
drphilmarshall Tue 2020-08-11 05:24PM
Wednesday In-Kind Proposal Workshop participants @here : Tuesday's session went well, and we got a lot of good questions! Many of them have answers in the Slack channel, so if you're interested, check out the threads in #day2-tue-slot3b-in-kind
Andrés Plazas (he/him/his) Tue 2020-08-11 05:47PM
The proposal workshop tomorrow is for those groups who submitted LOI's last year, who heard back from Rubin, and who are planning to formally apply for data rights via in-kind contributions, correct? Ii was wondering, will there be another round like this ("LOI--->feedback from Rubin--->formal application for data rights") in the future for international groups that did not/could not submit LOI's last year?
drphilmarshall Tue 2020-08-11 05:36PM
Here's the link to the that I mentioned a couple of times during the Tuesday session, indicating that its a better place to copy and paste example proposal sections from. Hope it helps!
Ranpal (she/her/hers) Tue 2020-08-11 06:10PM
Session:_In-kind Proposal Workshop (repeat)
Date/time: Wednesday August 12, 2020 - 07:30 HST - 10:30 PT - 13:30 EDT - 19:30 CEST - 03:30 AET +1
Details:_ and
Link to handbook:_ or
Zoom link:_
Password: 257500
Renee Hlozek Wed 2020-08-12 01:35PM
the slide link is broken @Ranpal (she/her/hers) ?
Ranpal (she/her/hers) Wed 2020-08-12 01:36PM
let me fix that
Ranpal (she/her/hers) Wed 2020-08-12 01:38PM
should be ok now
Renee Hlozek Wed 2020-08-12 01:38PM
thank you! does indeed work
Adriano Fontana Wed 2020-08-12 10:57AM
Hi Phil/Bob, many thanks to you and the CEC for the great work. A submit here a few questions...
Adriano Fontana Wed 2020-08-12 10:58AM
General question first - understandably there is some discretionally in the process on your side, weighting factors etc. This might eventually reduce the value of the final agreed value of the contribution, hence the number of PIs. Would you recommend proposing more than what a partner aims for? I mean - if a partner aims at (say) N PI-ships, would you recommend proposing contribution for fxN PI-ships, with f>1? If so, what is the appropriate f?
Adriano Fontana Wed 2020-08-12 10:58AM
2) In the section about Added-Values catalog. (Page 15) you mention that the labor to make the catalog is not taken as a contribution. I would challenge this statement. It is true (as you say) that a given survey would have done the catalog anyway, but the work of cross-correlating it with LSST catalog in a sensible and clean way is not trivial (at least not always) and should be factored in, when appropriate, as a software development.
Adriano Fontana Wed 2020-08-12 10:59AM
3) I have the impression that the requirement that telescope time goes through the AEON services can be difficult to be met in cases we own the telescope time but not the infrastructure. A typical case is GTO time at ESO telescopes, but also other in cases. Can you comment on it?
Adriano Fontana Wed 2020-08-12 10:59AM
4) For "directed" SW development, and even more for General pool, there is a general problem of providing specifications and supervising the work. In scientific coding these processes are difficult to formalise, so that an expert human supervision is needed. How would you arrange it for resources that are external to your teams? In this sense I would challenge your statement that the time of faculty/senior staff supervising the work cannot be accounted for, as this is needed for the work and it is at the exclusive benefit of the US/Chilean communities,_It will be difficult to secure manpower at faculty level without a reward.
Ariel Goobar Wed 2020-08-12 11:24AM
With regards to value-added data sets: is there any kind of embargo against publishing science papers based on these prior_to handing it in to the Rubin data facility?
Knut Olsen Wed 2020-08-12 01:27PM
Good question. I was involved in the dataset evaluation discussion and no, the CEC did not discuss embargoing publishing science papers for in-kind datasets. But one of the stronger weights is what science opportunity the dataset contains for the community. If the papers already capture much of the science opportunity in the view of the committee, that would obviously reduce the dataset value.
Ariel Goobar Wed 2020-08-12 02:17PM
Thanks @Knut Olsen , from the other comments from Phil and Bob, I think the take home message is that they see pros and cons to a data-release paper. They will take it offline to discuss further with CEC. Comes down to details of what is meant by "published". If it has been already exploited fully and there is no scientific potential by offering to US community, then it will not be considered valuable.
Hiranya Peiris Wed 2020-08-12 12:19PM
Cross-post: porting over a question from Tues in-kind session...

@drphilmarshall _ @Robert Blum _I have been asked by colleagues to seek clarification on the following queries on the active followup process:
How will the 'weighting' be justified? Since we still have to pay for 100% of the telescope time, e.g. a 0.25 weighting means a PI is 4x as expensive. We would like to release our spectra for LSST alerts directly through TNS within 48 hours, for LSST alert triggers from the LSST community. Is that not better than providing them to a single US PI? It is not our telescope so we can not guarantee full AEON implementation, but can arrange to receive triggers from an AEON interface that we then execute. The triggers could come from all LSST:ers, or from selected groups as TAC:ed, or graded by a TAC. We would need to do the scheduling based on magnitude, RA, and observing conditions. Is that acceptable? In case the above arrangement is acceptable, is it also OK to impose a restriction on the type of targets - e.g. extragalactic transients, or supernova classifications - but not open up to_ all _science (CV, AGN, GRB..) to not get in conflict with local TAC? Should we ask an LSST SC to endorse such a scheme? Thanks for any clarifications.
Hiranya Peiris Wed 2020-08-12 02:05PM
Thank you for the very helpful answers! To summarise for people seeing this asynchronously:
delivery of followup obs to community vs single PI is a different use case, and can be discussed - could be valuable Special restrictions imposed by facilities on the proposers can be discussed on a case by case basis. restrictions on the class of sources observed would probably render that contribution less valuable.
Steve R Wed 2020-08-12 02:26PM
@Hiranya Peiris Concerning the weight, it is a measure of the priority of the resource to the InKind program, and of course it can range from high to low. A low priority contribution will be more valuable if offered at a low price. The weight multiplier is the Rubin approach to setting a price that makes the resource interesting to InKind.
Roger Davies Wed 2020-08-12 12:57PM
All in-kind contributions need to be embedded in a recipient group and we will work closely with the Science Collaborations we are members of. Do we need to secure a formal endorsement of our proposal from the relevant Science Collaboration or is that something
Roger Davies Wed 2020-08-12 12:58PM
you arrange?
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 01:18PM
Good questions to get us started, @Adriano Fontana @Hiranya Peiris @Roger Davies ! I'll be looking to IPC @Greg Madejski to bring them up at the appropriate time during the session, so all can hear the discussion. IPC @Steve R will also be with is, to help with questions about AEON and TACs.
Eduardo Banados (he/his) Thu 2020-08-13 03:38AM
Those were all great questions above, any chance to have their answers in Slack as well?
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 01:21PM
@channel If you are looking for Zoom connection details for the In-kind Proposal Workshop session, do please see the post that Ranpal pinned to this channel (that also contains links to the session page and slides). We'll be encouraging questions in Slack rather than Zoom chat, please (because its easier for us to capture them in our notes for follow up later). You can already see some exemplary audience work in the posts above - thanks for that! See you in 10 mins :-)
Ranpal (she/her/hers) Wed 2020-08-12 01:23PM
In case you don't know what a pin is click in the top here:
David Buckley Wed 2020-08-12 01:27PM
Will it be acceptable for proposal teams to reach out to others SCs, not specifically identified in the CEC feedback letters, when they develop their full proposals?
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 03:00PM
Yes! Please do, as appropriate. If you need help figuring out which SC to contact, just let me know.
David Buckley Wed 2020-08-12 03:03PM
Thanks. Talking with SMWLV (Will Clarkson) tomorrow. Will also reach out to AGN SC.
Andrés Plazas (he/him/his) Wed 2020-08-12 01:31PM
The proposal workshop is for those groups who submitted LOI's last year, who heard back from Rubin, and who are planning to formally apply for data rights via in-kind contributions, correct?_I was wondering, will there be another round like this ("LOI--->feedback from Rubin--->formal application for data rights") in the future for international groups that did not/could not submit LOI's last year?
Merlin Wed 2020-08-12 01:41PM
I think it's quite a bit wider/more general than that.
Merlin Wed 2020-08-12 01:41PM
Pre-LOI feels like the target audience to me (I'm in there right now)
Andrés Plazas (he/him/his) Wed 2020-08-12 03:29PM
thanks! I'll watch the recording; or maybe wait and see if somebody else comments here with clarifications for my question :slightly_smiling_face:
Gonzalez Alma Wed 2020-08-12 01:31PM
In page 25 of the handbook it says: "Due to the diversity conditions of proposing groups and funding_ sources we do not distinguish between permanent staff_ or temporary staff_ in the exchange rate" I understand this means either a permanent or temporary staff can lead a proposal, the example also shows it...._ but does it imply that temporary staff could also be considered PI if data rights are approved?
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:58PM
No: the rules for PIs and JAs are entirely separate from the in-kind contribution definition. Temporary staff working on (or leading) an in kind contribution may or may not be granted a data rights slot by their proposal/DRA-holding team. If they are, it would be a JA slot, because they are temporary.
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:59PM
Good question - I agree there is plenty of room for confusion between PIs and contribution leads, when discussing "proposals" which typically have "PIs"! What a tangled web we weave...
Gonzalez Alma Wed 2020-08-12 05:16PM
Thanks for the clarification!
Lovro Palaversa Wed 2020-08-12 01:41PM
A question related to the "General pool of directed effort": how should the international contributors define activities and deliverables in the proposal if they don't know in advance where the effort will be directed?
Lovro Palaversa Wed 2020-08-12 02:23PM
Great, thanks!
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:55PM
Short answer was: it'll be easy, and those subsections will be short! I'll work up an example in the Handbook for you.
Lovro Palaversa Wed 2020-08-12 03:17PM
Great, thank you very much for your reply Phil!
Eduardo Banados (he/his) Thu 2020-08-13 03:43AM
Please let us know where to find that example, thanks!
Wed 2020-08-12 01:42PM
@Wesley Fraser has joined the channel
Julia Gschwend Wed 2020-08-12 01:44PM
If one item in the list of in-kind contributions is potentially useful to more than one recipient group, should we include them in the same session, or create different sessions containing specific information regarding each recipient group?
Roger Davies Wed 2020-08-12 01:45PM
David Buckley Wed 2020-08-12 01:46PM
Will it be possible to add to the existing proposed contributions not originally included in the LOIs, so not with a LOI code?
Aprajita Verma Wed 2020-08-12 02:32PM
see the following:
Aprajita Verma Wed 2020-08-12 02:33PM
Enter "N/A" for new contributions not in the original LoI hence without a code.
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:54PM
Thanks @Aprajita Verma ! :slightly_smiling_face:
Massimo Dall'Ora Wed 2020-08-12 01:47PM
A general question about the efforts already produced within the SCs: all the work done, going from leading subgroups and chairing task forces, to documents writing and meeting participation, will be evaluated somehow in the in-kind process?
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:52PM
Thanks @Massimo Dall'Ora - in the session I referred to this section of the Handbook:
Massimo Dall'Ora Wed 2020-08-12 02:54PM
very useful, thanks Phil
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:54PM
Short answer was no, service work does not qualify as an in-kind, BUT we are actively working on an alternative route to permanent data rights for people who have made valuable contributions to building the LSST science community, separate from the in-kind process.
Julia Gschwend Wed 2020-08-12 01:49PM
Surhud More Wed 2020-08-12 01:49PM
How often do you expect amendments to the data rights agreements? I suppose this will not be a continuous process but once a year or something?
Surhud More Wed 2020-08-12 02:03PM
During the annual review says @drphilmarshall
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:51PM
I also said that I hoped we would not have to deal with a lot of amendments!
Tim Holt (He/Him) Wed 2020-08-12 01:54PM
Are the PI rights linked to the institution/proposal, or the individual? And are they transferable?
Tim Holt (He/Him) Wed 2020-08-12 02:02PM
Thank you. For references, PI rights are linked to the Institute.
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:50PM
In practice, the transferability will happen through the proposal team lead / data rights agreement signatory providing Rubin with an updated list of PIs and JAs to grant data access to - just how it works for current MOA holders now.
Hiranya Peiris Wed 2020-08-12 01:54PM
Do software developers whose effort is an in-kind contribution take up a PI slot or a JA slot? or are they extra?
Surhud More Wed 2020-08-12 01:56PM
I had asked similar question yesterday (I hope this gets answered today).
Aprajita Verma Wed 2020-08-12 02:20PM
@Greg Madejski also asked yesterday but not answered
Hiranya Peiris Wed 2020-08-12 02:26PM
Was not answered today yet...
Greg Madejski Wed 2020-08-12 02:27PM
Which part, specifically, was not answered? Sorry for having missed it...
Hiranya Peiris Wed 2020-08-12 02:28PM
Do the in-kind software developers take up a PI or JA slot?
Hiranya Peiris Wed 2020-08-12 02:28PM
(maybe was answered in a different way but I could not work out an yes/no answer about this point)
Hiranya Peiris Wed 2020-08-12 02:34PM
Phil's answer: They detach the people doing the work from people getting the data rights. It is up to the proposal group to give the datarights. So the a priori answer to the question is no, they do not take up data rights unless the proposal group allocates them to the person (e.g. if they need it to fulfill the in-kind contribution)
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:44PM
That's right! Thanks for your patience on this one, everyone. We got to it in the end :-)
Gonzalez Alma Wed 2020-08-12 02:03PM
Related to Tim Holt question. If a participation is being proposed by researchers from different institutions, who would be signing the MOA(s) in case of approval, the lead proposal institution? Could the contribution lead change during the time of the project, regardless to which institution they belong?
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:47PM
I think data rights agreements (DRAs) could be signed by single institutes, or collections of them. We'd probably prefer a single one but TBH there will have to be coordination happening somewhere, so it probably doesn't matter how many institutes sign. (Probably.) This is something for each proposal team to figure out with us once we have a DRA vehicle to work with, this Fall.
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:49PM
Could the contribution lead change during the DRA period? Yes: and Rubin doens't care whether that lead position changes institute. As long as the contribution gets delivered, do whatever it takes. This is a good example of a DRA amendment that may have to get made in order to solve a problem with a contribution.
Gonzalez Alma Wed 2020-08-12 05:14PM
Thanks for the answers!
Sara (Rosaria) Bonito Wed 2020-08-12 02:06PM
Related to @Massimo Dall'Ora question above, in particular in the case of efforts provided by members of the same Institute. Thanks
Hiranya Peiris Wed 2020-08-12 02:17PM
Who is the recipient group/point of contact for the General Directable Pool of software development effort?
Hiranya Peiris Wed 2020-08-12 02:19PM
Phil and Greg are the point of contacts for this.
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:41PM
Yes! And I took an action to work up an example proposal section to help the teams who are thinking about this option.
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:43PM
I'll add here that general pooled effort will continue to be valuable well into the survey: I expect FY24-26 could be especially important given that the analysis will be gearing up and the Rubin ops team will be looking to refresh the pipelines. So having a pool of effort to draw on in those years (and even beyond) could be very useful. Not everyone will be able to make such long term commitments but something to bear in mind.
Hiranya Peiris Wed 2020-08-12 02:44PM
Do we need to get in touch with you before proposing, or should we follow the example you will supply and await feedback?
Hiranya Peiris Thu 2020-08-13 05:05AM
@drphilmarshall sorry for the repeated ping after your very helpful marathon efforts over the past days. I am asking this in order to find out what is the most efficient way to proceed for you.
Robert Szabo Wed 2020-08-12 02:23PM
Sorry, I couldn't get the exchange rate between (software developer) FTE vs. PI.
Tom J Wilson Wed 2020-08-12 02:23PM
1 FTE/year/PI I think
rmandelb Wed 2020-08-12 02:24PM
Just to be clear on what the "year" is modifying, it's 1 FTE-year of effort to get data rights for 1 PI for the duration of the survey, for directable and non-directable effort.
Surhud More Wed 2020-08-12 02:24PM
1 FTE-yr per PI for the entire duration of the survey for non-directable effort, it is 0.75 FTE-year per PI for pooled directable effort (thanks Rachel for the correction below).
Robert Szabo Wed 2020-08-12 02:25PM
Many thanks.
rmandelb Wed 2020-08-12 02:25PM
Not quite - it's 1 FTE-yr for directable and non-directable effort, 0.75 for pooled directable effort.
rmandelb Wed 2020-08-12 02:26PM
So if you dedicate directable effort to, say, a specific SC, that's 1 FTE-yr exchange rate, whereas if you give Rubin Observatory the option to decide where that effort goes (with advice from the CEC) that's the 0.75 FTE-yr exchange rate.
Aprajita Verma Wed 2020-08-12 02:27PM
see text under
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:40PM
Thanks all! Excellent answers :slightly_smiling_face:
Massimo Dall'Ora Wed 2020-08-12 02:25PM
Thanks, Phil
Tomislav Jurkić Wed 2020-08-12 02:26PM
Can requirements for Object Lite DAC be negotiable if it is a science specific Object Lite DAC (e.g. star catalogues) and how such a science specific Object Lite DAC will be valued?
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:39PM
@Tomislav Jurkić We are open to science domain-specific IDACs, since they could provide a good way to spread the load around the IDAC network and also foster collaboration. I think such a science specific IDAC would be valued the same way as any other IDAC (ie and not penalized).
Tomislav Jurkić Wed 2020-08-12 02:45PM
Thanks! And what about requirements, can they be downscaled for science specific DAC in respect to Lite DAC minimum requirements (75 TB for catalogues, 500 TB data storage according to RTN-13 document)?
drphilmarshall Fri 2020-08-14 01:30PM
Potentially, I think maybe yes - but you shouldl raise this via email to the IDACs coordination group leads @Knut Olsen and @Greg Madejski so they can find out the answer for you and the other teams.
Knut Olsen Fri 2020-08-14 03:20PM
Hi Tomislav, I do think there is some flexibility here, your numbers just need to be justified by what it is you propose to provide, following the guidelines for the DACs._In the IDAC Technical Note (RTN-003), there is a section (5.3) on Compute vs. Storage resources, with reference to the DAC sizing model (DMTN-135), all of which you are encouraged to use as justification in your proposal._You should determine the storage, CPU, and bandwidth needed to serve the portion of the data that you intend to host, using the tech note and DMTN-135 as a guide._And then estimate the compute resources and storage needed to support the users of your IDAC._Section 3.5.1 in RTN-003 suggests 2 CPUs per simultaneous user for the Rubin Science Platform, which is coupled to ~1 TB of storage per user (Table 30 in DMTN-135)._You're not required to run the RSP of course, but it's probably a useful measure of the resources needed for active users. But as @drphilmarshall says, please do send us the question in an email. We will collect the questions that we get and provide individual responses as well create a FAQ that has been vetted by the relevant Rubin personnel.
David Buckley Wed 2020-08-12 02:33PM
:clap: :+1: thanks Phil !
Robert Szabo Wed 2020-08-12 02:33PM
Thanks, was very useful.
Tim Holt (He/Him) Wed 2020-08-12 02:33PM
A quick question: If an institute hasn't put in a NOI, can they still submit a proposal in this round?
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:37PM
Good question. We are not advertizing this opportunity, so would have to think carefully about such a late arrival. A necessary step would be getting approval for further development from the US agencies; before that we'd need to judge whether we really could (or should) squeeze them in. My advice to such a group would be: send email to Bob and me with a simple email of intent, and force us to address the question properly. We are not aware of any late entries yet.
Tim Holt (He/Him) Wed 2020-08-12 02:42PM
Ok thanks Phil, I'll double check if things went beyond 'emailing SC' stage.
Roger Davies Wed 2020-08-12 02:33PM
Thanks Phil
Bob Mann Wed 2020-08-12 02:33PM
Tim Holt (He/Him) Wed 2020-08-12 02:34PM
thanks all :clap: :clap: :clap:
Hiranya Peiris Wed 2020-08-12 02:34PM
That was super helpful, thanks very much :slightly_smiling_face:
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 02:35PM
Whew - apologies for the rush towards the end, but I know how exhausting these zoom conferences are! Thanks for joining, and the excellent questions. I'll be happy to answer more questions as they come up here throughout the day. After lunch/dinner/etc :slightly_smiling_face:
Robert Lupton Wed 2020-08-12 02:36PM
Will there be a summary, Phil? You told us to attend only one of your sessions, but I doubt if the questions were identical --- and you ran out of time anyway.
Tomislav Jurkić Wed 2020-08-12 02:37PM
Another quick question - how do you plan to manage possible duplicate efforts in contributions?
Aprajita Verma Wed 2020-08-12 02:42PM
See section of the handbook, sometimes duplication is warranted and preferred, but there are more details on different duplication cases in the handbook
Tomislav Jurkić Wed 2020-08-12 02:53PM
Thanks! So, if I understood correctly, collaboration with SC is preferred in order to avoid duplication of effort.
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 03:02PM
Yes! That's right.
Tomislav Jurkić Wed 2020-08-12 03:03PM
Thanks again!
Aprajita Verma Wed 2020-08-12 03:04PM
and to find out if duplication of approaches is indeed desirable.
drphilmarshall Wed 2020-08-12 03:01PM
@Robert Lupton The IPCs are working on an FAQ based on the questions asked, that we'll post to next week. I'll make sure the proposal team leads all hear about that.
Jens Hjorth Wed 2020-08-12 03:03PM
Hi @drphilmarshall , thanks for a very useful presentation. I have a couple of questions:
Jens Hjorth Wed 2020-08-12 03:03PM
I'd be curious about your take on @Hiranya Peiris questions about providing spectroscopic followup of LSST transients (instead of handing over time to US PIs through AEON). This could be attractive to other groups and perhaps shouldn't be treated on a case by case basis. In other words, roughly what weight do you have in mind for such an arrangement?
Jens Hjorth Wed 2020-08-12 03:03PM
What kind of commitment are you looking for in the proposal: A firm, fully funded commitment for 13 years or an intended, but so far non-funded, intention. Or somewhere in between?
Jens Hjorth Wed 2020-08-12 03:03PM
For an IDAC or IDAC Lite proposal: what kind of relation to the SCs is expected? A direct relation/embedding in one SC? More SCs? Or independent of SCs? Must an IDAC (Lite) have a well-defined scientific scope/profile?
ldacosta Wed 2020-08-12 03:35PM
@drphilmarshall it would be great if possible to have a summary of the Q&A - I am particularly interested in the amendments policy people in Brasil will not be comfortable to assume a commitment for 15 years !
Adriano Fontana Wed 2020-08-12 04:04PM
In case of "added value catalogues" that are accounted as "software contribution" they also need computing power - can we include it with the standard conversion factors? After all it is a computer power contributed to a given SC, that is the recipient of the added value catalogue.
Adriano Fontana Wed 2020-08-12 04:05PM
The Q&A have been quite useful - maybe you should combine the two and make a public Q&A page that lasts longer than these slack channels
Steve R Wed 2020-08-12 06:16PM
@drphilmarshall My take on Q&A now in the notes.
Ranpal (she/her/hers) Thu 2020-08-13 05:33AM
The recording of the live session is here: