Dear Stefan, Dear Gerd, Thank you, I understand. That makes sense. Please accept my apologies again for the meeting today, due to another long-standing commitment (that one, like so many, also being an online meeting nowadays). If there are any specific items where the OC needs information from me in advance of its decisions, may I suggest I take them by email? I might even be able to answer brief questions in real time this afternoon. I only have one general strategic comment, and I am clear in the understanding that this does not feed into any judgement/ranking of individual proposals. It is my view that in this closing period pf the current agreement, it is in the best scientific interests of the collaboration to give due prominence to topics that have some degree of novelty, e.g. new classes of sources, or prototypes of significant categories of target that have not yet been observed in earlier operations; or where there’s some higher scientific level of risk; while maintaining some core of the very long monitoring projects. Of course, the proposals themselves must stand to be judged to achieve this aim. All the best, Garret From: Hess-ap <hess-ap-bounces(a)lsw.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Tuesday, 12 January 2021 at 18:49 To: Hess-ap <hess-ap(a)lsw.uni-heidelberg.de> Cc: "Gerd Pühlhofer" <Gerd.Puehlhofer(a)astro.uni-tuebingen.de> Subject: Re: [Hess-ap] Questions by the OC Dear all, Apparently there has been a misunderstanding on several fronts. Iterating with Gerd, I understand the OC-members-at-large suggest to address questions that might emerge with the astrophysics WG conveners at tomorrow's meeting along with any comments on general strategic importance from the working group point's of view. Questions on technical/analysis matters will be distributed to Operations, IT and Instruments (who do not provide comments of their own) Best regards, Stefan -- Hess-ap mailing list Hess-ap(a)lsw.uni-heidelberg.de https://srv1n.lsw.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hess-ap