[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
UH or not UH...
- To: David Schade <David.Schade@hia.nrc.ca>, Richard Wainscoat <rjw@IfA.Hawaii.Edu>, Christian Veillet <veillet@cfht.hawaii.edu>, Laurent Vigroux <vigroux@discovery.saclay.cea.fr>, Olivier LeFevre <Olivier.LeFevre@astrsp-mrs.fr>, Yannick Mellier <mellier@iap.fr>, Annie Robin <annie.robin@obs-besancon.fr>, JJ Kavelaars <kavelaars@physics.mcmaster.ca>, Alain Blanchard <ablancha@ast.obs-mip.fr>, Ray Carlberg <carlberg@moonray.astro.utoronto.ca>
- Subject: UH or not UH...
- From: Christian Veillet <veillet@cfht.hawaii.edu>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:03:32 -1000
Bonjour
At the last SAC meeting, the UH representatives made clear that UH is not likely
to participate into a CFHLS which would be significantly beyond the 42 nights.
As we are keeping a request for a lot more than these 42 nights and there are
good chances to get much more than these 42 nights (though we could get
less than the 110 nights a year we ask for), I wonder what is your feeling on
how to handle the UH participation in our report.
There are two ways do work in the coming weeks:
1/ Start to outline everything with only C and F.
2/ Keep in parallel a data flow, an organization and a night accounting with and
without H.
1 has the advantage of the simplicity, and the the disadvantage of assuming that
we can't change UH position on the coming months.
2 is a bit more complex, though the additional work to present alternate
solutions is not that big a deal as it doesn't change the basis of the survey.
It keeps the UH participation an open issue, which looks fair as SAC is only
an advisory committee anyway...
I favor 2 myself. I would like to get your own feeling back asap.
Thanks
Aloha
Christian