In January 2006, at the ASAC meeting, it was recorded: "- Other aspects of the ASAC report have not been responded to. In particular, there has been no reply on the Time Allocation issue. Not in the new charges. Will await the new ASAC report." June 2006, Santiago Board meeting: "The Board favored a single TAC for ALMA, pending some discussions. If a partner wishes to have a separate TAC, all costs of such will be borne by that partner. This is basically the model endorsed by the ASAC." Related, "The Board clarified the disposition of discretionary time. Discretionary time belongs to the Director of NRAO and the Directors General of ESO and NAOJ, who may grant some time to the ALMA Director, at their discretion." Later I wrote: "Please let me clarify this--not only did they favor a single Time Allocation Committee, they favored a single Program Review Committee also. This will have ramifications for the Operations Plan I think. All proposals will be submitted in the same fashion, at least for the bilateral partners, e.g. as a file submitted for example to almaobserve@alma.cl." Jul 5, 2006, Tom Wilson circulates first try at a white paper on the Program Review Committee, to be agreed by all Project Scientists. Jul 17, 2006. Wilson circulated revision. July 24 2006: Wilson and Wootten and Kawabe are preparing a paper for the pros and cons of various TAC choices for KYL and CC (and, I guess, Miyama). Beasley comments: "The existing NRAO/VLA model defines the cheap/simple end of the spectrum, but having taken part in it from all sides I don't think it is a great model for ALMA. Fundamentally, it's not scalable... it relies on a core group knowing the whole community and the major areas of interest; assumes few issues of conflict (different groups proposing for the same thing, problems with overlapping science goals etc.); and deals with a smaller community (hundreds). Most of these violated by ALMA? I agree the HST model is the other (silly) end of the scale. The occasional f2f meeting is a good idea, keeps everyone pitching at the same level - might be cost-effectively associated with a relevant science meeting? etc. 3 August 2006: Converged 'White Paper' circulated among regions Project Scientists 3 Aug 2006 Hibbard circulated comments on the cost of peer review. Board Telecon: 2 Aug 2006 Statement from Shoken Miyama in favor of multiple proposal calls per year. ESAC sent PS White Paper. 17 Sept 2006: ASAC Face-to-Face: PS White Paper presented to ASAC. EASAC view also presented. 28 September 2006: NRAO Director LO calls meeting of Chris Carilli; John Hibbard; Al Wootten; Crystal Brogan >> Cc: Adrian Russell; Billie Rodriguez to discuss the details. 29 Sept 2006: ANASAC presentations on the PS White Paper My summary of ANASAC views: "Single International TAC favored to provide rankings advisory to the Executives on both logistical and scientific grounds. The TAC needs to be large enough to provide depth through subsidiary panels. The single TAC may avoid duplication in large programs; duplication in smaller programs is not a concern as competition produces the best science. Executives may allocate time based on criteria differing from those of the TAC. 24 Oct 2006: I communicated some items from discussions with Fred and ANASAC to Wilson and Laing. I sent to Fred a summary of past ASAC statements on proposal review committees. 27 Oct 2006: I sent Fred various committee reports, ANASAC and ASAC. 10 Nov 2006: Board discussion in Madrid. Board discussed consulting ASAC on TAC white paper, TAC details and implementation options. ASAC Report contained some words on TAC. 8 December 2006: ANASAC updated on TAC/PRC items. 11 Jan 2007: AW invites John Carpenter to be a NA member of subcommittee to participate in the evolution of the ALMA TAC concepts. Other members are Testi, Yamamoto and Mardones. 22 Jan 2007: Email from Board TAC subcommittee with charges to subcommittee to participate in the evolution of the ALMA TAC concepts. "The charge is to write a more detailed implementation plan to submit to the ALMA Board subcommittee on TAC (chaired by Lo, with Miyama, Cesarsky, Bronfman as members) by 16 Feb, in order to have time (3 weeks) for iteration among the TAC subcommittee, and for submitting document to ALMA board two weeks ahead of the actual meeting in Tokyo by March 9. Please also consult the current version of the ALMA Ops Plan and incorporate details that are consistent with the Board approved principles." 2007 February 27: ALMA Board External Review of Operations Plan, including TAC section. 2007 Mar 26: Report of TAC Subcommittee at Kyoto Board meeting. Discussion arranged between Board members and Chilean astronomers. 2007 April 4: ASAC Telecon. Richer subcommittee reports it met by telecon but did not conclude its report by the March Board meeting. 2007 October 14: Subcommittee formed in January delivers its report. 2007 October 29: Board approves ALMA Operations Plan Vers D.