[csp] CSP February 2022 meeting

[ada nebot]

Hi Vandana, 

Thanks for your feedback again! 

> 
> Hi, everyone.
> 
> I filled the survey out for Spitzer. The process of reading the survey with a particular project in mind was illuminating! Below are some comments.
> 
> - There are a lot of institutions involved with Spitzer, so I put "NASA and a lot of others". For most projects, even pretty small ones, there are going to be multiple organizations "involved". I'm not really sure what we gain from asking this; feels like a wasted question to me.
> 

The idea of the survey is to have at least one contact point of one of the organisations involved in the project, but knowing that there are more involved in the data distribution can help us understand a bit better the project itself. Take e.g. the case of eROSITA or SVOM missions. The involved parties might have data policies which are completely different, so we might get different answers depending on who answers the survey. 
I propose to modify and add this: 

Is there more than one institution involved in your project? Yes / No
What institution are you representing within your project?

I think that is easier also to interpret… 

> - Same with the question about first light. I don't know what first light is and if I have to go to a different page to find out, I'm not likely to come back to the survey. Yes, it says I don't have to fill it out, but I did have to take the time to read it. Again, I don't think we learn much from this question, so I would omit.
> 

Going down to the day / month is not useful actually. But I would like to have an idea on when in the future a mission starts. I have changed to a drop-down with years going from <1999, 2000,… 2029, >2030. It might be more likely to be answered since it is not so precise.  

> - Even though we explicitly ask about past missions on the first page, every subsequent question is in future tense. 
> 
Changed

> - For the questions about projects having an archive, and whether it will be public: It was not the case for Spitzer, but I know of several missions that have a private archive AND a public archive. They are different and separate. The wording here doesn't allow for those projects to represent themselves accurately.
> 
Changed 

> - For the question about "How do you envisage scientific users accessing your data? (select one or more options)", I checked all of the boxes.
> Did that help us learn anything? I have the sense, especially from conversations with Gregory, that this particular question could be expanded quite a bit and grow to be the heart of the survey. If we get rid of the "busy work" questions at the beginning, we could make room for stepping through some of the more interesting and meaty issues that are hiding in this question.
> 

I think the answer might be different for other projects. Also, I think that detailed questions related to finding, accessing and exploring the data are really interesting too, but I thought those would be aimed for in the second survey. Or do you have specific questions you would like to add in this round already?  

> - Is interoperability with your data and the data of other projects a goal of your project? In my experience, a project "goal" is always science based, e.g. "measure the early light curves of 100 supernovae". Should this instead be interpreted as a "requirement"? I would have to check a very long list of requirements to find out if interoperability of data were on the list. So I think this question is harder to answer than it seems. You'd have to get just the right person involved in the survey to answer it. At the very least, this needs an "I don't know" option. Or perhaps, "Do you think it would be useful for researchers if these data were interoperable with other data sets?" It really depends on what we are trying to learn from this question, and what we will do with the answer.
> 
> 

Yes, the scientific goal of a mission is not to be mixed with the archival requirements… I propose we have both questions, the one associated to the requirement and this one  

>  "Do you think it would be useful for researchers if these data were interoperable with other data sets?

Also I have added a question “How familiar are you with the VO and the IVOA”. 

Cheers,
Ada

>