[mmaimcal]calibration memos

[Mark Holdaway]

Concerning reviewed memos:


We initially (ie, in 1996 when the memos first became available on the
web) wanted all the memos in a single series.  Good search tools enabled
us to break down the memos by topic, so we thought separate antenna memo
series were not required.

When the memo series went to CV, the search tools were no longer
supported.  I think without the search interface to the memo series, we
lost an argument for keeping them all in one series. 

Furthermore, when the computing folks began having reviewed documents,
it made good sense to start a new memo series: the interface was somewhat
different from the main memo series, and also the memos here have gone
through a different process, so you know something in this series 
is going to be less idiosyncratic and higher quality, on average.

I think it would be a mistake to have reviewed calibration memos as part
of the main ALMA memo series, as this would be a heterogeneous body,
in terms of the process which the memos went through and the status of
the memos in terms of reflecting the consensus of the prohect.

I would argue that we should create a new memo series for calibration
issues.  That series would be reviewed, as with the computing series.
Unreviewed memos could still go through the standard memo series.

Also, I would make one more distimction: some memos are somewhat
free-wheeling, mainly aiming at putting an idea out there for further
consideration, discussion, and work.  While the Y+ memo #419 was pretty
solid in many ways, I consider this memo to be of this class of memos. 
Such a memo might just be a wild idea, and might not lead anywhere.  It
might be superceded by tighter ideas, or it might solidify into the path
we end up taking.  To spend more time reviewing such a memo might be a
waste of time.  However, the next memo on the Y+ topic will be more in the
direction of a design, and I think that one could benefit from review. 

So, I think that the division into a separate memo series is not just
topical, but also relates to how close something is to becoming policy or
design or blueprints.  


	-Mark