[csp] February 2022 - CSP Meeting

Wed Jan 19 18:22:07 CET 2022

Hi, everyone.

I like the idea of reaching out to missions! Is the survey that you linked
similar to the one that was sent out before? Did it get a lot of responses?
My main concern is that it is very long (over 30 questions, some long
form!) and I think many people will scroll down and give up.

Some suggestions:

- Have a little text at the top that describes the purpose of the survey
and possible benefit to the person who agrees to fill it out. Presumably we
are doing outreach to reach people who haven't already entirely bought into
the IVOA? If so, then I think we need to offer more of a bridge and make it
easier.

- Provide an estimate of the time it will take to fill out the survey.

- Think about which questions could be removed to make the survey shorter.
Some of the questions are not required (no red asterisk). Can we jettison
them?

- What is missing I think is an invitation to offer help if there is
someone who is interested but doesn't know much. Is there a way for them to
consult with someone at the IVOA who could give them pointers?

- Why are we asking for peoples' emails? If it's to contact them
for follow-up, then we should ask permission to do that.

Possibilities for shortening if that's of interest:

   - Are we learning anything actionably different from question 1.5 (first
   light) versus 4.8 (decision timescale)?
   - I don't understand the point of 1.6 (state of software at first light).
   - Could combine 2.1 (primary products) and 2.2 (secondary products)
   unless we really need that level of detail. If so, why?
   - Why do we care about proprietary period?
   - I wonder if 3.2 (data access use cases) and 3.3 (data analysis use
   cases) could be combined.
   - 4.1 is required, but there's not a choice for "I don't plan to
   incorporate IVOA standards into my project". A user could choose "Other",
   but it's awkward. Also, there should be a choice for "I don't know".
   - Could questions 4.2 and 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 be either combined or made
   more obviously distinct?
   - 4.7 seems out of place in this particular survey, and covered at least
   partially by 4.6.

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 7:39 AM ada nebot <ada.nebot at astro.unistra.fr>
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I would like to fix the date of the meeting to *Friday the 4th of
> February at 17 UTC*.
>
> In preparation for item 5 in the agenda: *Coming missions & data
> distribution plans.  **Survey*?
>
> Please have a look at the following survey:
>
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/19bF_tmJ9FYm1Zs-cgOOr70Va-s_IO3fDV8Th5EdjS1Y/edit?ts=61561503
>
> If such a survey gets sent by the Exec members to each country we might be
> able to know which are the missions (too many for me to work out) that
> would benefit from having a VO access and get in touch with them. This has
> been done in the past and I think it is time to do it again. There are some
> missions that need to be targeted soon, e.g. IXPE and SVOM. We have seen
> that some older missions are also interested in distributing their data
> using VO tech (e.g. Arecibo). So we shouldn’t necessarily limit to ongoing
> and future missions.
>
> Please *have a look at the survey*. Is it ok as is to be sent around or
> do we need to modify some parts?
>
> Thanks,
> Ada
>
>
>
> On 17 Jan 2022, at 13:42, ada nebot <ada.nebot at astro.unistra.fr> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> This is a kind reminder, please fill out the poll before Wednesday:
> https://doodle.com/poll/t8tdddpbseqqaznx?utm_source=poll&utm_medium=link
>
> Cheers,
> Ada
>
>
> On 13 Jan 2022, at 11:49, ada nebot <ada.nebot at astro.unistra.fr> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> We would like to set up a meeting on the week of 31st of January.
> Please let us know your availabilities by filling out this poll:
> https://doodle.com/poll/t8tdddpbseqqaznx?utm_source=poll&utm_medium=link
>
> *Agenda: *
> Revision of the RoadMap
> 1 - Keep up with community feedback (continuous effort)
> 2 - Participate to the running meetings (continuous effort)
> 3 - Follow up on data formats such as parquet files, PSRFITS (ongoing)
> 4 - Evaluate the need of SLAP V2
> https://www.ivoa.net/documents/SLAP/20190409/ versus LineTAP
> https://github.com/mmpcn/slapvamdc. Promote dev of one against the other
> or both? Collect science cases?
> 5 - Coming missions & data distribution plans. Survey?
>
> The first three items are informative and no further discussion is
> required. We should have time to talk about the other two items in the
> agenda.
>
> Cheers,
> Francesca & Ada
>
>
> --
> Astronome Adjointe
> CDS, Observatoire Astronomique de Strasbourg (ObAS)
> UMR 7550 Université de Strasbourg
> 11, rue de l'Université, F-67000 Strasbourg
> +33 (0) 3 68 85 24 20
>
> _______________________________________________
> csp mailing list
> csp at ivoa.net
> http://mail.ivoa.net/mailman/listinfo/csp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> csp mailing list
> csp at ivoa.net
> http://mail.ivoa.net/mailman/listinfo/csp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> csp mailing list
> csp at ivoa.net
> http://mail.ivoa.net/mailman/listinfo/csp
>

-- 
*Dr**. **Vandana* *Desai* | Caltech/IPAC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/csp/attachments/20220119/dacac38d/attachment-0001.html>