[MODEST] towards a MODEST RTN

[Rainer Spurzem]

   Dear MODEST colleagues,

   the lively discussion on a possible MODEST related RTN (=research
 training network) has been quiet for some time. I was too busy to
 respond much earlier, and will also try to keep things short today.

 I use Pavels last long e-mail to the list as a quote to continue some
 lines of arguments.

> I still believe it is too early to launch a MODEST RTN application,
> but I also understand that others think otherwise. So here are a few

 This and other points need a more elaborate discussion, preferrably on
 a personal level, in a small workshop, to check what everybody expects
 from a network. And how many people are willing to spend what work into
 building an application. I understand from Ralf Klessen that he possibly
 wants to host such a meeting in Potsdam and think it is a very good idea.
 It should be in a time to give us a chance for the November deadline, but
 it should be open in that question. 

 Some arguments were raised about star clusters not being a highly
 glamorous subject, better wait some time. Will it be ever the right time?
 Shouldn't we do our best now to justify why star clusters are so important?
 It is even worth big HST programmes for some observers, so why should
 we not succeed in explaining its relevance now? Again, this question
 is difficult to bounce back and forth by e-mail, it should be part of
 the workshop programme.

> Mark was able to refute some of my statements: For the funding agency
> it is not important that the scientists applying are on permanent
> positions, and professorial status is not important either (it is good
[...]
> However, it is clearly important that a solid infrastructure must
> exist with long-term staff at the nodes that ensure the network can
> survive over its designed lifetime. The network is between nodes, not

 I underline both of these points made by Pavel. From my experience in
 previous networks, especially in the last unsuccessful one (GRAPENET)
 it was possible to get a well-broken down information how much scores
 were reached in which field. These fields include the quality of the
 nodes themselves, the training aspects, the quality of cooperation and
 management, and some more. We were quite close to the success threshold
 and at least this system was transparent (how many points were missing in
 which fields). So the system is not that ``some people sit together and if
 they don't find our summary fascinating they throw it away''. It is
 important to make a good summary, but at last a good balance in all
 fields which are evaluated is important. Not the professorial status or
 whatever. Only for practical reasons a node must be something of a certain
 stability and ability to provide the administrative means, but one can
 apply for some support of administration or use the overhead money for it.

 What is a very good point (which may improve as compared to the previous
 attempt) that we have a good structure established already in form of
 the (European participants) of MODEST. We should explore in the workshop
 what kind of inclusion of our overseas partners is possible. The focus of
 the funding must be probably Europe, but this is less strict now in the FP6
 than in the FP5. 

 But we still have some points to clarify. To me it seems a very good idea
 to include observers, but keep the restriction on dense star clusters,
 young and old. Formation should be only included in so far as it is
 related to the long-term evolution or massive clusters (well this wording
is an attempt, maybe Pavel, Ralf or Hans like to rephrase this sentence a bit?).

 So here is my list of interested people. I am in contact with the  Padova
 group (G. Piotto). They have explicitly expressed there interest and I
 believe they are a key element here, observers with HST projects for 
 globulars in their group and excellent record. Therefore I added them.

 From our last RTN application Cambridge was represented by G. Gilmore,
 including Sverre certainly, so we should keep him in too, if he is
 still interested. He would also strengthen the observer's side. So we have:

Warsaw      (M.Giersz)

Amsterdam   (S.Portegies-Zwart, O.Pols)

Edinburgh   (D.Heggie)
Leicester   (M.Davies)
Cambridge   (G. Gilmore, S.Aarseth)

Heidelberg     (R.Spurzem)
Potsdam        (R. Klessen, H.Zinnecker)

Lausanne  (G.Meylan, ?)
Geneva    (J.C. Mermilliod)

Strasbourg (C.Boily)

 (Note: I have included Geneva because Pavel did it. Do we have explicit
 interest from them? Whether Lausanne
 can be already included in the November deadline is a bit questionable.
 I am in touch with Georges).

 Finally, the colleagues in Rome around Roberto Capuzzo-Dolcetta together
 with other Italian groups contacted me, but honestly I doubt a little
 bit whether they would be right here. Their main interest was leaned
 towards computational science, and maybe something materializes there.

 So that's my ten cent, and I would really think it is a good idea to
 have a meeting and see who is really interested, for now or later. 
 Also we need somebody to browse through all the new official papers
 and see what we can do for the inclusion of the non-European partners,
 and discuss it. 


 All the best

 Rainer

-- 
============================================================================

 Rainer Spurzem                      spurzem at ari.uni-heidelberg.de
 Astronomisches Rechen-Institut                   Phone +49-6221-405-230
 M"onchhofstrasse 12-14, 69120 Heidelberg         Fax   +49-6221-405-297

 http://www.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/mitarbeiter/spurzem/index.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------