ASAC Meeting 19 October 2004
Wootten, Wilson, Lucas, van Dishoeck, Myers, Richer, Turner, Mundy, Emerson, Yamamoto,
Chris Wilson, Schilke, Cox

Project report from Al and Tom.

The report.  
ESumm--keep short and perhaps bulleted.  These could go at the end also.

Charge 1:  LGM never quite understood bullets being summarized in priority order--where
is the first item to be cut in this list?  Highest priority should be explicitly said
to be top down--collecting area highest.
The priorities have different ranks--delaying early science is the one we would
most prefer to suffer.  Lee noted that the Board may insist on a bottom line which
may be verbally spelled out but not written down.  Richer noted that we should
emphasize that we can only judge on science.  Several thought that this had been
done but this was not unanimous.  C. Wilson noted that specific examples would bring
this home--were we to drop a receiver band could we recover ten antennas for instance.
Cox said that several Board members heard that a 10% loss in collecting area was
acceptable.  Schilke noted that we were told that this was the only feasible
scaleback.  Richer re-emphasized that the ASAC was not in possession of enough
information to really balance.  Note that the point says a 10% loss would be modest
but on the next page it says the whole array's collecting area is necessary to reach
distant galaxies.  Schilke notes that one can integrate longer.  EvD notes that the
baseline project is a very good one and is the one endorsed by many countries
scientific communities; a lesser project may not enjoy such broad support.  It was
noted that the report has already circulated.  The material may be reformulated
in the executive summary or in the points at the end.

Figure doesn't turn out very well in black and white.  EvD will take care of this.

Charge 2: TAC policies.  Chris made some good suggestions which were incorporated.
Richer was concerned that without a careful reading it seemed to suggest that peer
review for large project be done by a separate body.  Only later does it mention
that they will go to partner PrcS; the order seems confused.  C. Wilson agreed
that this could be clarified.  Several agree that this should be clarified also.
'in addition each partner PRC will examine the large proposals, which will pass them
along to the top level body.  Wilson will capture the sense of the ASAC in a
new sentence and pass it along.  Note also duplication is a concern for large
proposals.  EvD thinks it was the sense of the ASAC that large programs are an
important aspect of ALMA science; this should be stated very clearly.  Should we
recommend that large programs should not be entertained until ALMA is nearly
complete--perhaps a sentence that the ASAC should examine when they should begin.
Agreement that if legacy project, they should have short proprietary time.  Chris
notes that legacy projects may not need to start at this time.  Mundy notes that
demonstration science projects are small legacy projects.  Does the ASAC agree?
These would get the data out quickly.  Cox notes that legacy connotes long term
interest, probably not something which applies to demo science.  Agreement on this
point was voiced.  Discussion of 4.3--perhaps a shorter clearer wording would be
better.  Less specificity was endorsed.  EvD believes that very small proposals
might not be singled out.  

Charge 3:  Under what circumstances should the calibration be achieved?  The
specification as if stands is malformed.
Appendix mentioned at bottom of page 12 which is not included.

Charge 4:  C. Wilson has expressed some concern about the clarity of our vision of
the early science and demonstration science interaction.  C. Wilson found this somewhat
confusing at the end e.g. we note that a group involved has an advantage, then
a later note makes this unclear.  I think we are trying to say that demo science needs
to be some of the first science, before Early Science.  But the schedule is very
compressed.  So the ES Milestone must shift or be redefined.  Perhaps the terms should
be defined more precisely--Open Science should perhaps be specified rather than
Early Science.  But even Demo Science is subject to open calls.  Some items in last
para should be said up front.  We should mention the ES number of 16 explicitly.
Not that not only images but spectroscopy could be a public aspect of demo science
(last para p. 14).

Charge 5:  Happiness.

Summary points and executive summary--some may need modification.
Cox:  A general comment--main recommendations of the ASAC could be identified in
boldface in each section.  
Myers:  We might eliminate the 10% reduction here; citing it emphasizes it too much.
C. Wilson:  Summary for Charge 2 could use some work; I'll do that to clarify it.
LGM: We could add that these activities should start at the ATF.  Agreement.

PS: Good--executive summary?  Is there anything important--
LGM: The transition inthe first para was confusing--number of antennas, then number
of receiver bands.  EvD: I would not use the word discovery space.  JT suggests
taking that sentence out completely.  This weakens the position by saying that
we might be able to accomplish as much science.  EvD: One more remark--at the
end of the intro we should note that Leonardo Testi is new EU vice chair.
Schedule:  Send this coming weekend.  Try to put in my changes today or tomorrow.
Chris can get changes in today.  Revised version tomorrow, rest of discussions by
email.