Current status of the MSWG work
 
 

June 2, 2000

The MSWG prepared a first report to the SAC for its May 2000 Meeting. In addition to various statements concerning the understanding of the MSWG on its mandate, the MSWG proposed a first set of surveys built from the ideas already submitted in September 1999. This first set does not cover all the ideas, nor pretends to be final. The interesting result of this exercise is that the number of nights needed for completing this first set is largely exceeding the 6 weeks a year considered as a minimum in the frame of the MegaPrime project and of the construction by CEA of MegaCam.

As a result of this first report, SAC issued the following comments and recommendation: (the full SAC report is available here):

SAC discussed the progress report from the MegaCam Survey Working Group, which covers policies regarding survey data, program selection, filters required, and the total observing time needed. These are in direct response to the guidelines given in the SAC report of the 56th meeting, in October 1999. The SAC has the following comments.

SAC is pleased that the MSWG has made some progress, but notes that more work is desirable by the next SAC meeting. SAC and CFHT note that the group  reports through SAC in establishing the survey programs, and reporting their progress. However, the MSWG should prepare some reports for a public web site,  after SAC and CFHT approval. The present report is very much work in progress and is not suitable for general distribution. SAC, in consultation with CFHT,  has the following comments on points raised in the report.
 
 

Recommendation #1 a) While liaison with Terapix and CADC is desirable, it is not felt necessary  to enlarge the group.  Appointment of such individuals might be made as part of the membership replacement process.  b) SAC notes that the idea of `competition' between new and the current survey  ideas was intended within the envelope of survey time, and that all  observations made during survey time are intended to have no proprietary time.  However, the following issues do need clarification or development:    i)  How to implement the peer review or survey-TAC process     ii)  How to allow new survey ideas to emerge during the MegaCam era    iii) How to involve new people in survey planning and definition over time    iv) How to involve interested individuals outside the working group   c) A prioritized list of surveys is needed, with justified observing time  needs.  These should involve scheduling scenarios over the year and  consider the desirability of completing initial surveys in good time rather than running many at once. While SAC is ready to recommend larger amounts of survey time than the nominal 6 weeks per year, it does need to be clearly justified, balanced against regular proposals, and approved by the agencies. d) The detailed roles of CFHT, Terapix, and CADC in moving the data down the pipeline need to be clarified.  The media and delivery of the data, and final disposition of pipeline data at CFHT, Terapix, and CADC should be addressed.  The ability to work remotely on data without full data transfer is a process that needs development. e) The amount of overall survey time to be agreed upon needs more detailed discussion. It is also possible that survey time may be enlarged occasionally by proposals from individual TAC's (especially if overlapping) being given survey status with no proprietary time within the related community. f) The early start of survey programs with the CFHT12K camera should be considered, before the commissioning of MegaCam.