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