Involvement of ARC staff in commissioning RAL, 2006 July 4 1. Introduction This note was prompted by the recent AICSV meeting in Santiago and the need for the ARCs to plan for staff hiring in the near future. It is intended as a draft to initiate discussion. 2. Background and timescales The current planning assumptions are that CSV (in the sense of handover of a verified 3-element interferometer from AIV to CSV) occurs in 2008Q4, the decision point on what to offer for Early Science happens in 2009Q1 and Early Science starts 10 months later, in 2010Q1. The very short interval between the start of CSV proper and the need to decide on and issue a call for proposals is a serious concern. There is a strong case to postpone the formal call by at least 6 months. An acceptable solution (endorsed by the ASAC in Oct 2005) might be to postpone by 6-12 months but to support a more extensive science verification programme in the mean time. This would allow users access to the array in a more flexible manner (e.g. when new modes become available) without using the full proposal machinery. This issue is discussed in more detail in the accompanying note. There are a number of obvious consequences: - When the formal call for proposals is issued, it is likely to be for a significantly larger set of modes than was the original intention. - The load on the commissioning team is increased, because it has to handle interaction with the SV community. - The need for the ARCs to deal with proposals and time allocation is postponed. At the moment, extension of the SV period and postponement of the full call for proposals is an idea, albeit one which has substantial support within the project and from the ASAC, It will require Board approval. Various milestones relevant to ARC operation are also affected, as John Hibbard has pointed out. 3. What is the role of the ARC staff? We need to devise a way in which ARC astronomers contribute to commissioning and in turn learn about ALMA and its data products to aid in their primary role of interacting with the outside user community. The model of ARC staff doing occasional shifts as Astronomers on Duty was envisaged for steady-state operation and is emphatically not appropriate during CSV, No effort is available to train people who are not then able to help with commissioning and the system is likely to be in an evolving state, scheduled at very short notice in response to events. In order to be effective members of the commissioning team, ARC staff need to work for significant times (~months) in Chile. Here are some possible models: (a) ARC staff spend one or two periods ~3 months in Chile during the commissioning period working as part of the CSV team under the direction of the PS. It might be appropriate for them to concentrate on the SV programme, since this will involve precisely those functions which will become important to the ARCs: - interaction with the user community - use of the OT (and later the PST), - assessing feasibility, - checking of scheduling blocks, - data reduction and - quality assurance. This idea would also alleviate the problem of the additional load on the CSV team during an extended SV period. A realistic goal would be for each ARC to provide 2 astronomers each making one or two 3-month visits to Chile in the period 2009Q2 - 2010Q4. Their turno cycle during this period is tbd. My feeling is that 20/10 might be more appropriate than the standard 8/6. (b) Some members of the CSV team who work full-time in Chile during the commissioning phase transfer to positions in the ARCs. In either case, the ARC staff who had spent significant time in Chile would be expected to train their colleagues. (c) ARC staff contribute by working on data reduction/quality assurance/SV at their home institutes. This is clearly cheaper, but very difficult for the PS to manage and may be appropriate only in carefully-selected special cases (unique expertise). It is unlikely to work well unless the individuals concerned have already developed good working relations with the CSV team in Chile. Model (a) with limited use of (c) as appropriate seems more consistent with the current ARC hiring profiles, although the NA ARC anticipates a number of transfers from Science IPT. 4. Issues (a) Science time. It will be extremely difficult to allow significant science time for the CSV team during the key year+ starting in 2008Q4 - there is just too much to do. This creates several problems: - Hiring and motivation of the CSV team, particularly in competition with ARC positions. - Avoiding divisive situations such as an ARC astronomer with a generous science allocation working alongside an overstretched CSV team. One way of getting round these problems is to adopt model (b) above and to allow a more generous science allocation to members of the CSV team returning to an ARC node. On the other hand, CSV astronomers ought to be submitting their own SV proposals during this period, and are natural points of contact for the community. Their knowledge of the ALMA system should give them a major advantage. (b) Recruitment and training [Likely to differ significantly between ARCs]. In order to contribute significantly to commissioning, staff would need to be in post and qualified in ALMA software by the end of 2008, some being prepared to spend significant time in Chile shortly thereafter. It is unlikely that enough interferometry specialists will appear to fill both the ARCs and the CSV team, so it will probably be appropriate to appoint bright, motivated people and to train them. A suggestion for the job descriptions of the early ARC hires would then be: - Experience in mm/sub-mm and/or interferometry desirable but not essential. - Willingness to spend one or two periods of ~3 months working in Chile during 2009-10 required (or desirable and quid pro quo in increased science time - later?) The current plan to have 2-3 astronomers per ARC in post by 2008Q4 is not obviously inconsistent with this model. Ideally, they would have some chance to work at the ATF first, but it seems increasingly unlikely that even the CSV team will be able to spend a significant amount of time there, at least with realistic hardware and software, on the present schedule. This argues for a more structured approach to training, as discussed at the recent AICSV meeting. (c) ARClets A specifically European issue is the involvement of staff from the regional ARC nodes (ARClets). This should be encouraged, especially for experienced people and others willing to make a serious commitment of time and effort. It also fulfils (in part) the wish to include the European community via the ARClets. This topic is scheduled to be discussed at the EU ARC face-to-face meeting in August. 5. Actions As with the proposal on extension of science verification, this is a draft to open discussion. I will attempt to summarise any consensus at the end of the month.