Dear All,
you have probably seen the past iterations of a document by the OC
members at-large to modify the AP conveners role in the proposal
evaluation process. I would like to propose to discuss this topic (and
Gerd's document) at our next upcoming AP-meeting; I added a
corresponding point to the agenda.
All the best,
Anita
Am 18.08.20 um 10:48 schrieb Stefan Wagner:
> Dear all,
>
> as much as I understand the reasoning behind the considerations regarding
> the roles of members-at-large (Gerd, Manami, Markus, Martin, Michal,
> Stefano) and the ex-officio members (in particular WG conveners) I need to
> point out the CB statement that is reflected in the text on the OC
> composition
> https://hess-confluence.desy.de/confluence/display/HESS/Observation+Committ…
> reading:
>
> The Astrophysics WG convener will be explicitly informed/invited to those
> OC meetings that are dedicated to and/or following up on the evaluation of
> observation proposals received in response of calls for HESS observation
> proposals.
>
> This had been the compromise between some CB members that rather preferred
> the OC to be completely disconnected from the WG conveners and those that
> wished the OC to be made up of WG conveners only.
>
> While all parties were unhappy with the procedures early this year, the
> way forward would be either to challenge the CB compromise (which would
> require the group of members-at-large to express their view towards the
> CB) or to
> iterate a workable procedure with the WG conveners. This would then target
> at clarifying the ambiguous wording "informed/invited" of the above text.
> I am afraid that a targeted consultation of an individual wg convener is
> not in line with the CB decision unless the WG conveners would agree.
>
> At this stage I suggest the members-at-large and the wg conveners to
> discuss the procedures - possibly based on a suitably worded version of
> Gerd's document.
>
> best regards,
> Stefan
>
>
>
>> Dear Gerd,
>>
>> yes. In the last version there was written:
>>
>> Therefore, OC believes that the presence of the science WG conveners
>> during the (entire) in-person OC evaluation meeting is sub-optimal.
>>
>> what could mean that their presence during some part of the meeting could
>> be considered. I would prefer to make
>> the issue clear with their absence, but give them option to pass to us
>> their ideas about the evaluation factors of
>> interesting science or technicalities which we could otherwise overlook.
>> Your formulation of this is a real improvement
>> of my proposal. Thus we clearly say we are open for the WG conveners
>> input, depending on their wish what they intend
>> to communicate to us, but not allowing for interference with proposal
>> evaluation. Of course this „(entire)” should be removed
>> from the cited sentence.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Michal
>>
>>> On 17 Aug 2020, at 18:39, Gerd Pühlhofer
>>> <Gerd.Puehlhofer(a)astro.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Michal,
>>> all,
>>>
>>> thanks for the feedback.
>>>
>>> Just to clarify, option one was not meant to imply that the conveners
>>> are invited in the in-person meeting. The option was meant to imply even
>>> less involvement by the science WG conveners, that they would only be
>>> contacted by us individually (very much like individual proposers or the
>>> OPS department) on a case by case basis, but that would be it.
>>>
>>> Regarding your addition to option two, I see your point. My intention
>>> was to explicitely avoid that science WG conveners would convey their
>>> priorities. So I would tend to say
>>>
>>> "but all WG conveners will be invited also to present their input on
>>> general issues they consider important in the proposal evaluation
>>> process. Priorities for individual proposals or grading should not be
>>> discussed in this context, though."
>>>
>>> Best, Gerd
>
> _______________________________________________
> hess-oc site list
> hess-oc(a)mpi-hd.mpg.de
> https://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/mailman/listinfo/hess-oc
