From rhills at alma.cl Mon Mar 1 14:37:11 2010 From: rhills at alma.cl (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:37:11 +0000 Subject: [asac] Situation in Chile and Next Week's Meeting Message-ID: <4B8C1767.6040206@alma.cl> Dear all, I am sure that everyone has heard about the earthquake. Attached is a message that is just going out the teams in the northern hemisphere, which I thought I should pass on. You will see that we are having to suspend operations fir the rest of this week while our staff deal with the aftermath. It was a very dramatic event here in Santiago and we all got thoroughly shaken up, but in general the damage is amazingly light. I have nothing but praise for Chilean building standards and the way that they are enforced. There is however enormous damage further south, the full extent of which is only slowly being revealed. I am glad to say that we have heard that Neal Nagar is OK. He is of course based in Concepci?n, which is only ~100km from the epicenter. I imagine that he must have had a horrendous experience and is no doubt still dealing with the consequences. As far as next week's ASAC meeting in Tokyo is concerned it seems to me that we should go ahead with this even though some people may not be able to make it. I think there were four of us planning to come from Chile - Neil, Alison Peck, Al Wootten and myself. We do not know when the airport will reopen - at the moment it is not looking promising. I suppose that Neil will not make it and Al's travel plans are already disrupted. Our present thinking is that Alison should stay here in Chile and to get things back up and running again. I will certainly do my very best to get to Tokyo. Obviously people who are not able to get there will contribute by video or telecon to the extent possible. Best wishes Richard -- ******************************************************************* Richard Hills Phone: +56 2 467 6175 ALMA Project Scientist Fax: +56 2 467 6104 Av El Golf 40, Piso 18 Apmnt: +56 2 474 1642 Santiago, Chile Mobile +56 97 608 1582 ******************************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ALMA_status.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 48179 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ohnishi at a.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp Mon Mar 1 21:45:56 2010 From: ohnishi at a.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp (Toshikazu Onishi) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:45:56 +0900 Subject: [asac] Situation in Chile and Next Week's Meeting In-Reply-To: <4B8C1767.6040206@alma.cl> References: <4B8C1767.6040206@alma.cl> Message-ID: <5261B0AB-67C5-4BE7-AEB5-E4619AD56636@a.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp> Dear Richard, I was so surprised and have been deeply anxious to hear about the huge earthquake in Chile, and we would like to express our deepest concern regarding this difficult situation. The report of no serious casualties among the project staff so far is reassuring, but it should take some time for the recovery in both material and spiritual terms. I am especially relieved to hear that Neal Nagar is ok despite his base in Concepcion, and however he must be experiencing unprecedented difficulty. We wish you all the best in recovering from the damages. Please send our warmest regards and concern to all the people of the projects and their families in Chile. For the ASAC meeting in Tokyo, I understand the situation of travel from Chile. We also would like to do our best to make the meeting fruitful and profitable to the project even under these difficult circumstances. Best regards, Toshikazu Onishi On 2010/03/02, at 4:37, Richard Hills wrote: > Dear all, > > I am sure that everyone has heard about the earthquake. Attached is a message that is just going out the teams in the northern hemisphere, which I thought I should pass on. You will see that we are having to suspend operations fir the rest of this week while our staff deal with the aftermath. > > It was a very dramatic event here in Santiago and we all got thoroughly shaken up, but in general the damage is amazingly light. I have nothing but praise for Chilean building standards and the way that they are enforced. There is however enormous damage further south, the full extent of which is only slowly being revealed. I am glad to say that we have heard that Neal Nagar is OK. He is of course based in Concepci?n, which is only ~100km from the epicenter. I imagine that he must have had a horrendous experience and is no doubt still dealing with the consequences. > > As far as next week's ASAC meeting in Tokyo is concerned it seems to me that we should go ahead with this even though some people may not be able to make it. I think there were four of us planning to come from Chile - Neil, Alison Peck, Al Wootten and myself. We do not know when the airport will reopen - at the moment it is not looking promising. I suppose that Neil will not make it and Al's travel plans are already disrupted. Our present thinking is that Alison should stay here in Chile and to get things back up and running again. I will certainly do my very best to get to Tokyo. Obviously people who are not able to get there will contribute by video or telecon to the extent possible. > > Best wishes > Richard > > -- > ******************************************************************* > Richard Hills Phone: +56 2 467 6175 > ALMA Project Scientist Fax: +56 2 467 6104 > Av El Golf 40, Piso 18 Apmnt: +56 2 474 1642 > Santiago, Chile Mobile +56 97 608 1582 > ******************************************************************* > _______________________________________________ > Asac mailing list > Asac at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu > http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/asac From ohnishi at a.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp Mon Mar 1 21:55:51 2010 From: ohnishi at a.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp (Toshikazu Onishi) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:55:51 +0900 Subject: [asac] Telecon (FEB03) memo In-Reply-To: <9CB6505B-5788-4882-B668-81AB9CA2AEA8@a.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp> References: <9CB6505B-5788-4882-B668-81AB9CA2AEA8@a.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp> Message-ID: <11351E86-3D02-4BF3-A619-7F7D69A1317D@a.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp> Dear all, I sent the wrong version of the telecon memo last week, which includes some Japanese characters. The difference is minor, but I am sending the corrected version. Best regards, Toshikazu Onishi ASAC Telecon memo 3rd February 2010 Attending: Baker, Johnson, Johnston, Stacey, Williams, Afonso, Gueth, Hogerheijde, Ivison, Kuno, Momose, Onishi, Hills, Wootten, Morita, Peck, Willson Agenda: https://safe.nrao.edu/wiki/bin/view/ALMA/ASAC3Feb10Agenda 1. Membership - New member: Jonathan Williams, Extension: Michiel Hogerheijde 2. Project Report - January 22nd: CSV started - Three antennas at high site - Deployment of the new software system (R7.0 version) - All 4 basebands (full 16GHz bandwidth) - Phase 1 configuration: 100-200m baseline -> Test in compact baseline in the near future. - Astronomical Holography expected: Measurement of gravitational deformation of main dishes - Two more antennas are testing at OSF, which enables another interferometry test other than at AOS - Control room equipped with archive - Three new people joined to the commissioning scientist, another one is coming - Frontend delivery schedule slipping. - Eight antennas in August are needed for early science test -> Frontend will not be available at the time - Important changes in the Project Management on the North America side - Adrian Russell leaving in July for ESO. Mark McKinnon will take over. http://science.nrao.edu/about/news_20100201_mck.shtml - Management of Frontend: Skip Thacker and Bill Randolph - Many more... 3. Face-to-Face meting: Charges and preliminary discussion - Proposal Review Process: Draft distributed + Comments from Rob, Andrew, Johnston, and Momose-san are attached below. + Major issues - Number of proposals one panel member should be reviewed per year: ~125 - Burdensome? - Assumption: 1000 proposals/year - One calls per year: for cost saving - Two calls per year will not significantly reduce the referee's load. - In any case, nearly 1000 proposals/call will be expected - Some percentage of proposals will be rejected as not being technically feasible - IRAM: ~100 proposals per semester already - Investigate other TAC's loads by asking your colleagues for further discussion at f2f meeting - The way of the estimation can be further explained at f2f - Science Categories - Four categories: Appropriate? - We need to build in some flexibilities in the system - There may be big in-valance between the areas - Duplication - A lot of duplications are expected for the 1st round of proposals. Many people are thinking the same subjects as urgent science. - Duplications need to be stated to the proposers before the deadline. - Proposers should know the rules for the duplications - Investigate other TAC's handling by asking your colleagues for further discussion at f2f meeting - De-scope or change proposals - skipped - Rigid approach of queue draining - See Andrew's comments - Low-rated proposals can eat up all the time for high-rated proposals depending on the weather - Same types of the thing might be already thought about. Ask Lars and their people on this. - Accounting of time for proposals which belong to multiple executives: Open sky and Taiwanese proposals - It should be automatically accounted according to the executive contributions. - Andrew's idea for accounting of time - CoPIs and CoIs: CoPIs share scientific leadership and the time accounting regardless of the number of hours requested - The idea that the responsible persons share the accounting of time itself feels great - Still there is a possibility that the sharing will be considered politically. - In the scheme of the current draft, 100+ hours proposals may be artificially inflated because proposers can split their risk that comes from the queue draining scheme. - There is no reason that 100+ proposals should be differently handled compared with smaller ones. - Very big proposals can be handled differently compared with smaller ones. - Open Sky Policy - No time to discuss during this telecon. - Cost saving - A lot investigation for construction and operation savings - Additional financial support from Taiwan? - Current construction cut plan does not include the items that leads to a scientific loss - Different operation plans are being investigated. Any decisions were not made yet. - One call for proposal per year. - Two months shutdown at summer time? - Comment: Should not do this. Very sensitive issue. - Software - There will be two people from computing coming to Japan. - Report from region Project Scientist - East asia - Two ARC scientists and two CSV scientists in selection - North America - Proposal to the NSF: 2012-2015 -Regional SAC - ESAC - f2f at March 1st - ANASAC - Workshop in fall?: Long wavelength spectroscopy in Astrophysics: ALMA, EVLA, Herschel,... - EASAC - ALMA User's meeting last December: ~150 people - Next meeting - f2f meeting 9-10 March, Tokyo - Next Telecon: 12 May 2010; not confirmed ----- Comments for the Proposal Review Process ***** 1. From Rob Ivison here are some thoughts on the ALMA Proposal Review Process draft. i've listed them in the order that i encountered the various issues in the document, rather than by importance. science categories: these appear sensible, both in number and scope, though i couldn't help wondering which box high-redshift radio galaxies might fall in? presumably "Cosmology and the high-redshift Universe" rather than "Galaxies and galactic nuclei". a definition of "high redshift" is all that is required (z>0.1?) review panels: i can see that panels consisting of 9 members is appealing from the point of view of regional representation. however, in my experience members of panels comprising >6 people tend to assume that other folk will do the hard work and find the important little flaws. i would advise more, smaller panels (which is, apparently, contrary to previous ASAC advice). 125 proposals per reviewer seems, to me, absurdly high. i like the idea that panel members serve 3 seasons. the biggest complaint about HST TACs is that the churn rate is too high. the biggest complaint about UK TACs is that the churn rate is too low (Chairs are often on panels for 6 years). i think the numbers here are about right. grading system: seems sensible, with lessons learnt from previous weather-sensitive facilities. review process: why two secondary assessors? reducing this to one secondary assessor would be an easy way to significantly reduce the overall burden on the assessors and thereby increase the quality of the assessing. it would help to write down explicitly whether a proposal that is "borderline technically infeasible" can or cannot be "re-written" to some degree by the panel. i don't care either way, so long as the rule applies to everyone. i would recommend that the science grades for each assessor are normalised to a common mean and stdev, and that assessors are allowed to give a null ranking if they feel it is appropriate for whatever reason. i didn't get a clear view from the document about how the recommendations of the different review panels will be merged. we should not ring-fence time for themes, so allocations based on the number of panels or the over-subscription rate are to be avoided. i would suggest that the APRC must explore a certain number of proposals near the A/B, B/C, C/D borderlines of each panel and form a conclusion re: their relative merits. this appears to be weakest part of the document. it ducks for cover when faced with the thorny issue of how to avoid ring-fencing time for themes. the issue of how time (and good weather) is to be shared accurately between regions is handled simply and straightforwardly. the formulae for sharing time amongst co-Is appears to be sensible. i am not happy with the 5% cap on open skies, nor about the idea that NA should pick up the bill if this is exceeded. i do not believe that a cap should be discussed in the document, or that one is justified. however, i am prepared to accept that no-one will give a stuff about what i think on this issue ;-) ***** 2. From Doug Johnstone Here are my quick hit thoughts on the proposal review process 1) the number of proposal calls per year has dropped from two to one - this may be financially and organizationally necessary but I am not convinced it is best in terms of getting excellent science on the telescope 2) Director's Discretionary Time has not been adequately addressed - how much time will be available ? I think a hard upper limit should be stated here 3) there is a statement that ARC staff will work with proposers of problematic proposals in order to get technical details correct - how will this be implemented, passively or actively ? I'd suggest more careful wording - "ARC staff will be available to work with ..." 4) each reviewer will read 125 proposals - Wow that is an extreme amount. I wonder if anyone will agree to sit on the review panels? 5) grade A proposals will remain in the queue for how long? If there is only one call per year than I see no reason to keep a Grade A proposal in the queue longer than an extra term. All programs go stale eventually and if programs aren't observed after two years they should be rechecked. 6) while not explicit to this document, the grading scheme will need to be watched carefully - dynamically scheduled telescopes can suffer significantly from either hyping expectations or discouraging users. 7) the ARP meetings seem like a huge amount of work for the reviewers 8) the stringency criteria should be available to users writing the proposals (if possible) - might help them choose most observable sources for example 9) not clear how duplications and overlaps will be handled which could lead to arguments later on - perhaps some words of advice here would be helpful 10) also not clear how much leeway there should be to de-scope or change proposals - given only one call a year this may be necessary to get excellent projects with small flaws on the telescope but it also opens up tampering charges 11) why is September 1st chosen as the proposal due date? This seems a horrible date. Is it really the best of a bad bunch? 12) is it realistic to believe that the Mnote-Carlo ALMA Scheduling software will be available in time - this is a very important part of the scheduling process 13) why have Taiwan split its time individually rather than simply put the time in both queues proportionately 14) if a program has under 100 hours and is led by an unaffiliated scientist does it end up in Open Skies? 15) why is a specific amount of time, 5%, set aside for Open Skies - I would have thought this could be left to be determined by the quality of the proposals ***** 3. From Andrew Baker Summary ------- The "vagaries of weather" argument for two proposal cycles per year may not be relevant if the rate of cycling through configurations is reduced (per recent suggestions from the operations group). Proposal Types -------------- A further argument for not allowing Key/Legacy projects early on is that these make no sense while the array's capabilities are still evolving rapidly (why spend hundreds of hours early on a project that can be done in tens of hours later?). DDT: I would like to suggest that the regional members of the committee that advises the JAO Director should be appointed by, and report back to, their respective executives. This was the sentiment expressed in the last ASAC report. Joint proposals: I think endorsement of "joint" (interobservatory) proposals is premature. In North America, I would say that the programs for joint NRAO/NASA proposals have not been resoundingly successful; moreover, if access to partner facilities is conditioned partially or fully on one's home institution (ESO, Gemini, etc.) then the "great benefit to the community" is not going to be shared very widely. This point needs more discussion. Management, Science Categories, ... ----------------------------------- If past experience is any guide, the fourth category will receive vastly fewer proposals than the third category. In some respects, 4 x Galactic + 4 x extragalactic ARPs seems like a more appealing and flexible scheme. The footnote on election of additional APRC members in the event that there are more than eight panels is confusing. The Proposal Review Process --------------------------- Technical assessors drawn from the pool of "JAO astronomers" should be primarily operations astronomers, to make sure that AIV/CSV team members are not overburdened during initial proposal cycles. I completely agree with Rob that referee grades should be rescaled for identical mean and variance before they are fed into ARP discussions. This might impose some degree of control on where the A/B and B/C cutoffs fall across all ARPs. ARPs need to be aware of which targets/proposals are implicated in duplications extending outside their own panels (e.g., so that they can comment on whether the scientific goals of a given proposal would be irreparably damaged by dropping one of several targets). The statement that duplications, overlaps, and descopes will be implemented "taking into account regional preferences" is extremely vague. I would think we can do better than this; in any case, the details need to be communicated with the proposers in advance of the deadline. I am leery of a rigid approach to queue draining: if different partners have different distributions of stringencies among their approved proposals (as I think should be allowable), then it's possible that a run of good weather or bad weather would eat up all of a partner's quota with proposals of one stringency and "strand" a few highly rated proposals with different stringency. Also, if a rigid approach to queue draining is adopted, it's not clear to me why the HSO needs to monitor and report on the shares of observing time scheduled for each region. Accounting of Time to the Executives and Chile ---------------------------------------------- I would favor a scheme like that adopted by IRAM. Proposers fall in two categories: CoPIs and CoIs. CoPIs (of whom there can be up to two for IRAM) are assumed to share scientific leadership of a project. For ALMA proposals, I think we should allow up to N = 4 CoPIs (one per region), with 1/Nth of the time attributed to each region, regardless of the number of hours requested. The long tail of CoIs then becomes irrelevant. I would argue strongly that proposers with rights to ALMA through more than one region should *not* be allowed to choose which region time should be charged to. Instead, time for proposers from countries like Taiwan should be charged to the partners according to a formula that is related to the terms under which access to ALMA has been negotiated. If there is no limit on the amount of time that Taiwanese astronomers can claim from either the North American or the East Asian share, then time should be charged in proportion to the relative contributions made to North America and East Asia for construction and operations (however the Board defines these). If there is a ceiling on the amount of East Asian time that Taiwanese astronomers can claim, then the time should be charged "in proportion" until this ceiling is reached, with the remaining time charged to North America only. (Note that this is rather similar to the treatment recommended for open skies proposals...) Open Skies ---------- I am very unhappy with the undue burden that the North American share will bear from "overflow" open skies proposals. However, this seems to be mainly an argument with my own government. Handling of Duplications ------------------------ Details need to be provided to proposers in advance of the deadline, not just to the ARPs before they meet. ***** 4. From Munetake Momose One is about the number of proposals which each panel member should review. As Rob has already pointed out, 125 per call seems formidable. If my memory is correct, the original idea about the proposal cycle was twice per year, at least in the full-operation phase. If once per year proposal cycle will be adopted, some mitigation to reduce the number of proposals per each panel member must be required (e.g., more than 8 ARPs: perhaps each ARP consists of less than 9 members ?). The other issue is about proposers with rights to ALMA through more than one region; this issue was also mentioned by Andrew, and I would like to support his argument. I believe time for proposers from a country like Taiwan should be charged automatically according to some formula which is defined beforehand. (There is no ceiling on the amount of East Asian time that Taiwanese astronomers can claim.) From morita at nro.nao.ac.jp Thu Mar 4 12:30:00 2010 From: morita at nro.nao.ac.jp (MORITA, Koh-Ichiro) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 02:30:00 +0900 Subject: [asac] Information for ASAC f2f next week. Message-ID: <4B8FEE18.8070005@nro.nao.ac.jp> Dear All, Here are several inforamtions for ASAC f2f meeting. 1. How to get to NAOJ Please see the attached file (Direction_to_NAOJ.pdf) Take a No.91 bus (Odakyu-bus) with red color from ?Musashisakai station bus stop No.3. Bus schedule: Please see left row of attached file (Odakyu-bus91_Musashisakai.pdf) 2. How to go back to the hotel from NAOJ. Take a No.91 bus (Odakyu-bus) with red color. Bus schedule: Please see left row of attached file (Odakyu-bus91_NAOJ.pdf) Be careful! There is another No.91 bus with different color operated by different bus company. This bus does not go to Musashisakai. 3. Meeting location Large meeting room of the south buiding at Mitaka campus. (See MTK_campus_map.pdf) For people who want to stay at NAOJ on Monday or Thursday, we prepare an office room. If you want to use, please contact me. My office is No. 107 of the north buiding. 4. LAN access We prepare LAN access for participants. To use this, you need the LAN account. Please refer LAN_Account_ASAC_f2f.pdf This account is available from Monday to Friday. 5. Lunch We prepare Japanese lunch box for you. If you are vegetarian, please let me know until Monday. 6. Dinner We will have a meeting dinner in the evening on Monday. The dinner is Shabu-shabu, which is a famous Japanese dish using beef. If you are vegetarian, please let me know until Monday. The bus to the restaurant is waiting for you at 18:30 at the main entrance of the north buidling. After dinner, the bus take you to the hotel. 7. Restaurant around the hotel The easiest way for restaurant is to go to a shopping center Ito-Yokado (south of the station). The center has 2 buidlings (East and West) and there are many restaurants at B1F of West building. I attached the file showing the restaurants of the shopping center (Restaurant_Ito_Yokado_Musashisakai.pdf). If you really want to enjoy Japanese drinking place, please try to walk around the station (north and south). There are many small restaurants and Japanese bars (IZAKAYA). Regards, Koh-Ichiro ====================================================== Koh-Ichiro Morita ALMA Project, National Astronomical Observatory, Japan 2-21-1, Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan Email: morita at nro.nao.ac.jp Phone: 81-422-34-3742 Fax: 81-422-34-3764 ====================================================== -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Direction_to_NAOJ.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 200224 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LAN_Account_ASAC_f2f.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 70263 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MTK_campus_map.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 266239 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Odakyu-bus91_Musashisakai.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 95323 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Odakyu-bus91_NAOJ.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 94963 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Restaurant_Ito-Yokado-Musashisakai.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49047 bytes Desc: not available URL: From morita at nro.nao.ac.jp Sat Mar 6 03:28:17 2010 From: morita at nro.nao.ac.jp (MORITA, Koh-Ichiro) Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:28:17 +0900 Subject: [asac] Dinner schedule of ASAC f2f next week. In-Reply-To: <4B8FEE18.8070005@nro.nao.ac.jp> References: <4B8FEE18.8070005@nro.nao.ac.jp> Message-ID: <4B921221.9030705@nro.nao.ac.jp> Dear All, Sorry, I made a mistake in the following annoucement. The dinner is scheduled on Tuesday, not on Monday! See you soon, Koh-Ichiro 2010/03/05 2:30, MORITA, Koh-Ichiro wrote: > Dear All, > > Here are several inforamtions for ASAC f2f meeting. > > 1. How to get to NAOJ > Please see the attached file (Direction_to_NAOJ.pdf) > Take a No.91 bus (Odakyu-bus) with red color from > ?Musashisakai station bus stop No.3. > Bus schedule: Please see left row of attached file > (Odakyu-bus91_Musashisakai.pdf) > > 2. How to go back to the hotel from NAOJ. > Take a No.91 bus (Odakyu-bus) with red color. > Bus schedule: Please see left row of attached file > (Odakyu-bus91_NAOJ.pdf) > > Be careful! > There is another No.91 bus with different color operated by > different bus company. This bus does not go to Musashisakai. > > 3. Meeting location > Large meeting room of the south buiding at Mitaka campus. > (See MTK_campus_map.pdf) > For people who want to stay at NAOJ on Monday or Thursday, > we prepare an office room. If you want to use, please > contact me. My office is No. 107 of the north buiding. > > 4. LAN access > We prepare LAN access for participants. > To use this, you need the LAN account. > Please refer LAN_Account_ASAC_f2f.pdf > This account is available from Monday to Friday. > > 5. Lunch > We prepare Japanese lunch box for you. > If you are vegetarian, please let me know until Monday. > > 6. Dinner > We will have a meeting dinner in the evening on Monday. > The dinner is Shabu-shabu, which is a famous Japanese > dish using beef. If you are vegetarian, please let me > know until Monday. > > The bus to the restaurant is waiting for you at 18:30 > at the main entrance of the north buidling. > After dinner, the bus take you to the hotel. > > 7. Restaurant around the hotel > The easiest way for restaurant is to go to a shopping center > Ito-Yokado (south of the station). The center has 2 buidlings > (East and West) and there are many restaurants at B1F of West > building. I attached the file showing the restaurants of > the shopping center (Restaurant_Ito_Yokado_Musashisakai.pdf). > > If you really want to enjoy Japanese drinking place, > please try to walk around the station (north and south). > There are many small restaurants and Japanese bars (IZAKAYA). > > Regards, > Koh-Ichiro > ====================================================== > Koh-Ichiro Morita > ALMA Project, > National Astronomical Observatory, Japan > 2-21-1, Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan > Email: morita at nro.nao.ac.jp > Phone: 81-422-34-3742 > Fax: 81-422-34-3764 > ====================================================== > > > > > ? > __________ NOD32 4856 (20100210) ?? __________ > > ??????NOD32??????????? > http://canon-sol.jp > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Asac mailing list > Asac at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu > http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/asac From morita at nro.nao.ac.jp Mon Mar 8 07:17:28 2010 From: morita at nro.nao.ac.jp (MORITA, Koh-Ichiro) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:17:28 +0900 Subject: [asac] Map from bus stop to the meeting room and particpants list Message-ID: <4B94EAD8.6090805@nro.nao.ac.jp> Dear All, Here are the guide map from bus stop (TENMONDAI-MAE) to the meeting room and the particpants list. See you tomorrow! Koh-Ichiro __________ ESET NOD32 Antivirus ?????, ?????????????????? 4924 (20100308) __________ ???????? ESET NOD32 Antivirus ??????????? http://canon-its.jp -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2010-03-08_ASAC_Participants_List2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 7128 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Busstop_to_NAOJ_campus.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 33102 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rhills at alma.cl Wed Mar 10 02:54:25 2010 From: rhills at alma.cl (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:54:25 +0000 Subject: [asac] Fwd: from Concepcion Message-ID: <4B975031.9070700@alma.cl> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: from Concepcion Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 17:53:52 -0300 From: Neil Nagar To: morita at nro.nao.ac.jp, rhills at alma.cl, nmnagar at msn.com Dear Morita-san, Richard, Greetings from the center of Concepcion - now finally en route to recovery. As you probably know I had to cancel my attendance at the ASAC f2f meeting. Our electricity was connected only late last night and so this is the first real opportunity to communicate with you by email. Apologies for any confusion. We are fine (my wife and I, and our 8 pets too!) though we managed the past week on emergency survival mode - cleaning rubble, fixing things, finding food, and foiling robberies. We were very lucky, given the magnitude of the earthquake to have survived so well. My office is not yet accessable and I have limited access to documents and my passwords etc. so I don?t expect to participate much in this meeting. Nevertheless I will try to catch up this evening and tonight on the documentation and send any comments if necessary. with best regards, Neil. From rhills at alma.cl Mon Mar 15 17:51:42 2010 From: rhills at alma.cl (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:51:42 +0000 Subject: [asac] Dates for next face to face meeting Message-ID: <4B9EABEE.5090503@alma.cl> Dear All, It was good to see you in Tokyo. You will recall that we talked about having this next meeting in the week of 11th Oct. I have checked with people back here, and I am afraid that this isn't going to work - there is a clash with another meeting plus people will be too busy with the preparations for the AAER. The previous week does not work for our vice-Chair, Frederic, and the following week is also problematic here (although not completely out of the question). This means that we should go for the week of 1st Nov with the week of 25th Oct as a backup for the case that the 1st Nov turns out to be not possible for too many people. Al is going to put up a Poll and will circulate the link. Please put your availability on that as soon as you can. Having it that late does mean that there will be little time to get the report ready for the Board but I think this means that we should keep the report simple and organize the meeting so that people do the main writing at the meeting and there is then an efficient process of circulation to get everyone's agreement. With luck the only critical item will be the "readiness" issue anyway. Best Richard -- ******************************************************************* Richard Hills Phone: +56 2 467 6175 ALMA Project Scientist Fax: +56 2 467 6104 Av El Golf 40, Piso 18 Apmnt: +56 2 474 1642 Santiago, Chile Mobile +56 97 608 1582 ******************************************************************* From awootten at nrao.edu Mon Mar 15 18:19:02 2010 From: awootten at nrao.edu (Al Wootten) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:19:02 -0400 Subject: [asac] Dates for next face to face meeting In-Reply-To: <4B9EABEE.5090503@alma.cl> References: <4B9EABEE.5090503@alma.cl> Message-ID: <4B9EB256.6090602@nrao.edu> Folks Please find a wiki poll for date availability this fall at: https://safe.nrao.edu/wiki/bin/view/ALMA/FtfdatesFall Please edit the wiki page, put a Y, N or ? in for each of the proposed dates and then save the page. We will then be able to assess most appropriately the most favorable dates. Clear skies, Al Richard Hills wrote: Al is going to put up a Poll and will circulate the link. > Please put your availability on that as soon as you can. > From rhills at alma.cl Mon Mar 29 10:27:14 2010 From: rhills at alma.cl (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:27:14 +0000 Subject: [asac] Dates for next face to face meeting In-Reply-To: <4B9EABEE.5090503@alma.cl> References: <4B9EABEE.5090503@alma.cl> Message-ID: <4BB0B8C2.7060704@alma.cl> Dear all, The dates for this are now hardening up on 2nd/3rd Nov, with the meeting itself taking place in Santiago on those two days and a visit to the site immediately before that (presumably 31st/1st). This seems to be compatible with all the returns to the wiki page so far https://safe.nrao.edu/wiki/bin/view/ALMA/FtfdatesFall but there are quite a few people who have not put anything in there. Could you please either fill in the wiki page, or if it more convenient just send e-mail confirming that the above dates are OK or not? Thanks Richard On 3/15/2010 9:51 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > Dear All, > > It was good to see you in Tokyo. You will recall that we talked about > having this next meeting in the week of 11th Oct. I have checked with > people back here, and I am afraid that this isn't going to work - there > is a clash with another meeting plus people will be too busy with the > preparations for the AAER. The previous week does not work for our > vice-Chair, Frederic, and the following week is also problematic here > (although not completely out of the question). This means that we > should go for the week of 1st Nov with the week of 25th Oct as a backup > for the case that the 1st Nov turns out to be not possible for too many > people. Al is going to put up a Poll and will circulate the link. > Please put your availability on that as soon as you can. > > Having it that late does mean that there will be little time to get the > report ready for the Board but I think this means that we should keep > the report simple and organize the meeting so that people do the main > writing at the meeting and there is then an efficient process of > circulation to get everyone's agreement. With luck the only critical > item will be the "readiness" issue anyway. > > Best Richard > -- ******************************************************************* Richard Hills Phone: +56 2 467 6175 ALMA Project Scientist Fax: +56 2 467 6104 Av El Golf 40, Piso 18 Apmnt: +56 2 474 1642 Santiago, Chile Mobile +56 97 608 1582 *******************************************************************