18 Aug
2020
18 Aug
'20
10:12 a.m.
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