This later on. Okay, cool. So only count of items on the agenda today. There's a couple of announcements. And then the main item is a quick update on the general strategy for which those a workshop earlier this week by the survey. I feel like the outcome and the SEO see the Committee tasked with doing this. So that's I think the main action will have today. So we can start an announcements. And like I think I said in the email, if anybody has any items they had wished it starts, it's not too late to add them to the any other rights in the section on the agenda, but we'll see how we go. Our supper then. Do you want to announce the ok. And just recently? So for the So for the current round of looking at in in kind proposals, we actually did not have anything that was specifically targeted to S sub w o be this route. Although we weren't giving a heads up that there are a number that I've basically follow up. And ancillary data related proposals that, that may benefit from our input. So briefly, we had six proposals from three different institutions total out. And for the main part, we've followed what are our colleagues at TDS did with a couple of points. That's because specific to static science. So base. Okay, just very, very briefly. And I'm, and just put it live notes. I'm going to put in a link to a document summarizing both the PVS and, and, and my take on it. So basically from Argentina we had three proposals. Tube, which we're making use of a very high site, but with fruit, very modest telescopes, specifically 0.6.4 meter. And with most of the imaging support, due to sensitivity issues. I think that's basically it. I'll play it at some low interest. It's just because of their magnitude limits on those two, even though it's a very good site. The thing that was interesting is doing follow up with the, with the 35 meter radio dish and basically S-band. So two gigahertz and expand eight kilohertz observations. We were wondering if this would actually be seeing for looking at like. So our neighborhoods studies, low-mass stars, brown dwarfs. I guess the main issues, the sensitivity available with just a single therapy by meter dish. Right? Noting that for general stellar observations, like the very large array has, has been successful by 10. What we can do with this 35 meters, so we put that in as a medium interest. And then going down south and actually also South. But New Zealand had two proposals when, which was access to 1.8 meter and 2.600 imagers. And then a one meter within the Shell Spectrograph. I think the larger imager, I mean the larger telescope was, was more of an interest like the idea of a shell. But on a one meter, that's going to be a hard sell for doing so that you get follow-up or else's he objects. They, New Zealand was also pointing out that this gets very unique longitude coverage, which is great for variable star work. The second New Zealand proposal was using the MLA Archive, which is a legacy dataset of two decades of photometry. It possible logic, galactic bulge out. I'll, yeah, this is something that we were very much interested in. They can get access to you. And then lastly, from our friends in Turkey. This is a Northern site. It would say one meter and 1.5 meter telescopes. With imagers. Once again, it's in the North and they're modest sites, facilities. So that what's more about low interest. So that's the six proposals. What I will be posting is basically a little bit more detailed copy of what I just recounted as well as the corresponding Hama through TBS for you all to look at. But I'll be doing that later on today. Okay. Thanks. Good. Okay. Good. So if people have further questions about any of these 2021 2022 proposal, should they contact you? Absolutely. Okay. And great for taking notes when I was a problem. Okay. All right. Wonderful. Thanks. Are there any quick questions anybody has prepared than before we move on? Can I see your hair and he's so let us move on. The second announcement we have is, is about the Alice is TC Catalysts Fellowships communication or that has been a little bit erratic parties through your friendly co-chairs. So it'd be good to go and update. I think there's a little bit about, about where we actually are. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen just so that we're looking at the same thing here. But the bottom line is that the program is still interested in mentors for postdocs through the LSST. It's a catalyst program. The expectation was that up to 10 mentors per sign, aberration would be allocated as far as we know as co-chairs to people from this collaboration that expressed an interest, that's Leo Gerardi and make rich. Who expressed interest in mentoring postdocs through this program. I did contacts, said Bianca recently to find out what the status of all this is. And the reaction was that to express interest in being a mentor, which still possible. You're recommended to email Federica probably versus CC me. You said that you're friendly chairs know that you're doing it with information below. And so doing that sooner is probably better than later because The intention is I understand with this update the sort of the book of mentors that potential mentees can contact during the coming week. And so there's some bullet points here in the notes about the information that's required. It's fairly quick to do this. I suspect most potential mentors already have a website, for example. They can point to. Notice that the short description of your interest and involvement with the Science Collaboration is maximum one hundred, ten hundred characters. So it's nice and short. Set of people on this call or who are watching this afterwards. If you're interested in possibly been a mentor for dialysis TC catalyst program, please email fed CC me with the information you see in the bullet points here to make sure that that gets created up to the people that need to know. So that's announced by have the SAR when your hands up. Thank you. I will on this, I will just like to know the clarification. I have sent the document that was decided there was circulated by TBS. And I also sent to you will I think all the churches such MOOC where local volume of the timber, the interests for Catalyst should die. Cell again, this information as you are saying, to fight them to you, this information collected because I understand you didn't receive any. First off, thank you for correcting me. My misperception of that just been to people that either due to the notes here. I would if you're already doing this through TDS, I understand that they've already been doing the process of listing their mentors. So you probably are covered through that through that angle. I would recommend just checking in and fed to find out the status of you are already in the in the conversation about Yes. Thank you. And sorry, listen. I think these are liking and yes, we can be mentor for collaboration. First, do an end to that. Follows, sorry. If any, what wouldn't be selected by our institution. Is it correct? I believe that's the case. There's some flexibility, I think in terms of your if you're an external mentor as well as part of the program is to connect small institutions with host institutions. So I think the answer to your question is yes. You might want to double-check the program website is linked in the notes here to see that clarifies that question. Okay. Thank you. Because it is also the case that my group or another group of senior enough as well. We have propose, I will say, is that once these digits, so there will be some failures and selected paired with our institute. That could be the case. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. You've you've moved beyond my level of knowledge of how the how the hosting works when the host institution is one of is still under under considerations proposal. So so I, I think Fed is the point of contact for that too. But I will double-check the website and it was not clear. I think you really should know who to direct your question to more specifically. Okay. All right. There's our answer question. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions about the catalyst program that I can take a swing out or direct you to someone who might know the answer from anybody. I don't think I'm seeing and it's so alright. Well, let's go ahead and move on. Alright. So the only real agenda item we had for this meeting was they observed and strategy. Because I suspect people are aware that there was. The second workshop for the service strategy optimization committee was held this week. Tuesday and Wednesday. Recordings will apparently be be posted and the spine to the workshop page. I don't know whether those are visible if you haven't registered yet, they are. They are. Okay. Good. So that means we have to be policeman hair. Yeah. So there's there's a vast amount of discussion and back and forth ranging from some new ideas that some science corporations have for the science they want to do. Most of which was in the extragalactic machine. There was discussion from the gaseous itself indicates him what input they need from the community. And that's going to form the main thing I talk about in a few minutes. And there was some feedback from the science collaborations that was presented on the new service strategy recommendation. So I recommended to people to look at the the meeting website page which has not just that, the other the slide. It has a stage for the film, talks. For anybody interested in doing metrics or this, we've been SEM or math framework. There's lots of people there as well. A couple of high points I wanted to mention for this course of that to make sure this, this collaboration knows about eternity, were not present at the workshop. So there's two items. The first is the image, is that the SCLC, which is the committee that is optimizing strategy as asks for science collaboration feedback on their phase 1, phase 1 recommendations, the new survey baseline. And then the second one is about rather more stringent deadline for the, for the metrics that enable us to evaluate our science cases. Just by the way, there's there's noise in the background. Can you still understand what I'm saying? Yes. Yes. Good. Thanks. Okay. So so we heard at the workshop that the SEC is requesting feedback on their district actually recommendation. In a nutshell, the recommendation is to divide the sky into sort of a galactic and an extragalactic cadence. For want of a better word. Most of the plane is now given white fast. It might total numbers of observations, but there are parts of the plane that have a lower number, 27 percent of wafer, Steve. And so to some extent, this sort of low latitude and high latitude areas had been decoupled and safe. So quantitatively that could be good for some of our science, but not all of it. And so the feedback that was presented for this collaboration can be found in the slides that you see in the, in the live notes here. Stars 2017, 31 on that slide deck. I basically communicated but for most of, most is the wrong word. For much of S and WBS science. Particularly the areas that require coverage of dense stellar fields. In most cases, the New baseline is an improvement because it allocates more time to those locations. Or for most of the cases that do not require those special region, it doesn't make things much worse. And the example that was presented was the nice metric that John gives us and PDO can develop for brown dwarf. The comfortably. I did also presents very useful feedback from our young stellar objects. The experts. In this collaboration, we've indicated that the baseline two is better than 1.7, but not as good as 1.5 for the science that they want to do. So, as it says here, the SEC has requested feedback. So my request at this point is to contact me if you have feedback for this. In addition to the slides that the SEC has seen, there was a request that went out to meet him participants to submit up to up to a page each of reflections to help because there's limited time in the workshop. So that's also an avenue. So I think that a recommended, if you intend to submit feedback, you might let me know. So I know to expect it. The the the message from gioco requested that feed that by November 24th, which is a little bit soon. So I think the easiest way to make sure that gets in, in a way that that that will be sort of coordinate together to send that to me. And then you'd you'd get no response from me, send it straight to it. Okay. Okay. So I'm underwater with someone else. So that's a general quest for people on, in this collaboration that if you, when you've read the recommendation, if you have reactions in either direction, consider responding to them to the SEO. See this and the easiest way to do that is probably to e-mail me so I can synthesize it and make sure it gets them forwards. Thus, action item one, for people who are interested in this. Before I move on to action item two, are there any questions anybody has or comments? Sorry. Yeah. Thank you. Will for the sulfur me regions as you know, that I myself later today as a persona and other telcos, so she's not pregnant, but we which are this afternoon. And as you know, we have changed the live this slide during the missing metric that you presented and learned that I had the chance to make some tests on the version two. And in fact, you will see in the slide that in a link here that you are showing here. She also updated the table. Yeah. And in fact, the point is that the version to the baseline is the better As you were saying, better than one, that's seven. And the ideal case for the coverage sense for the footprint is for the cadence thesauri is swept the galactic plane at the same level as the wife as the BCG survey. And in fact, if we consider that the op Sima that was in version one got 50 footprint GPS move. That was the same coverage as the width as deep, but then you want the version 2. It is no, call me check in the new table that you will find in the slide, 21 of them is symmetric. Like that. It is the one called The very GP debrief rock 1-zero version two. And this is also ideal for suffer MEA region because it is again the co-pilot of the galactic plane at the same level or the wife of depot. So this is the ideal case, what the base two is. Good bugs. As request by loaded Alawi shall not go lower than DOT 5 with respect to the wife of people for star-forming regions. So the idea now I know diluted and make the pull request today for the new notebook within Europe seem are considered. And possibly we will try and get them an enriched Zell equal before the deadline or next week with the one per page feedback into how good is because it was done in real time. By, by Medina. Thus fast, remarkable. I'm glad you guys managed to get to that so quickly. And it sounds like that's quite a categorical recommendation. So that, that, that, that's encouraging to hear. Okay, with that this useful. Well, thanks for the update. That's good. That's good to know. Yeah, I suppose now begins. The discussion will begin about whether or not either built 0.5 times wide fast as possible. But it's good to have a recommendation to that. That that's that's very helpful. Thank you. Forget that. That's good. Thanks. Okay. So maybe after the meeting I should put a paste and enough joke. I just said a bit more about what this one-page feedback might be. So people who are listening to this, but find that useful. Okay? Any other comments or questions about this, this first request about the responses on the strategy. It's preferable if they call it quantitative. But I think at this point, qualitative is also useful. If, if I may add a comment that's not gonna miss this one. We've made this number geometric center. After the session. Leader will. And I think it will be helpful as you were suggesting to to contact me as you see. I'm checking. Sorry. In real-time. The discussion with Maggie. Yeah. She said she asked How can yes. Ucla select b of output to the community on on these. And we alighted also during that TBS talk by Rachel that we would like to have it. In fact, we asked for this. So before the workshop to have a one-to-one feedback for the non integrated metrics are. The ideal thing would be to have one-to-one feedback for all the, all the kinins note in terms of what it is missing. Not just the metric because for our case, we have a lot of variability. In that case. We use the pre-existing metrics and we modify that, then we develop and not work with that. But when the support of Peter and we're knowledge is supportive. And so it is in the form of not VUCA, which produce plots from which we can derive our figure of merit. So it seems nothing is missing that case, but still it is not considered as part of your strategy in that case because of the definition of a micro surveys or smaller than micro service or whatever. So I think it will be very useful for those cases like mine, where apparently something is missing or to be clarified or I don't know exactly what's the point tool to add this feedback by the SEC. In fact, I plan to meet, again lean Peter lets you see liaisons to be sure not to miss the deadline. And who, as our teammates work, trying to provide all the old day and read required metrics and not books and document. Here I am, I'm duration steps. The point that the input impedance mismatch between what the community can decide on what what the team needs, which also evolves over times it has been a source of concern when indeed people are working very hard to provide these, these metrics. So my view is that the November 24th feedback can be somewhat broad in that sense. Like if has this been considered? This really is a recommendation model today beneath x, sense and white fasted, let's say in the in the outer plane regions in your case. So I think that the 24th November feedback that can be bequests like that. And then the metrics is a different thing, which is the code development for the math piece of it. Because as you say, the important thing about whether the pieces are in place to do the figure of merit. So I think it's most useful if the kind of feedback you were mentioning about whether minimum cadence, let's say for personnel. If that's part of the feedback by the 24th, at least there'll be my recommendation is addressing what you're asking. Yes. But at the same time, I think that this is again, a feedback that their community, It's providing to the SEC. What we were asking after PCCW, the summer was okay. We provided to you the white papers than the cadence note. Then the sessions needed a Pc w. So now before, but now after. Yes, you see workshop to the request should be like, as you see members, please provide you some feedback to us to be sure that the things that we are providing right now are enough for the implementation by the end of this year as this deadline and now it's coming very soon. So what you're saying is that we are providing again we as community has provided again to yes. You see committee another clarification on our work. But I would like to have a check on. Okay. You've done everything. We request to be integrated or what is missing it is this one because I discuss it a lot with Peter and Lena. Knowledge very much their support and their hard work on that. And it seems every time that everything is very clear. But at the same time, at the end is not clear to me. Why are our sense case could be in a waiting list? Because this is too small because it is a microservice because it's missing something. I don't want to miss the deadline because it is I don't receive feedback one-to-one for the cadence know they need some improvement. Fm. So I'm not entirely sure I'd answer that. I think in the sense that I don't know whether the S, C, Cs, it's their responsibility to make sure that everything is in place to be considered in the deliberation. And from a book at the station, you had to make that that seems to be something that's maybe not not quite clear. That being said, I think the best route to determine that is probably to ask our SCLC representatives, Jane canoes, who can probably provide a fairly categorical answer about sort of how to determine you don't miss that boat. I suspect in your particular case, given how much communication there has been hammer, huh? How active you have been in promoting and instead of objects, I suspect they know about their science page, but I sent the SSC back to the white people are ask to this and they can answer the question. And then if that doesn't get anywhere than, than, than than, than revisit. I think the technical issue of whether the metaphors can be run in math is one, pizza and learning, it sounds like you've been discussing that with them. So yeah, that that that's about as far as I can. And so I think I'm on that issue. I think there are mismatches in the way that these things are being communicated. I think that sometimes for our rest guessing that to to to to straighten out. Yeah. Thank you for this disinfect they think I will touch on is you seniors eyes and the mouth. And also because they they can leave Time or the community that they wouldn't be made him want to play families. And that's true. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. So maybe I won't benefit for some name that the medicine okay. Yeah, that could be a good subject for half a day. Yeah. So I still think that the general feedback like that extent, but it's helpful to divide by the 24th if that's possible. Okay. So why don't we move on to the second actually request I had I had for the grave. And that's that we were told at the workshop fairly in a fatty cut enjoyed way. That, that metrics, these are these individual numbers that you calculate per field that then can get summed into or combine the two figure. Note that those metrics are needed if you want it to be included in a deliberation finish, been into math. So actually coded, incorporated so that Lenin, Peter and Eric can run them at all the net or the opsins by the end of this year, which gives us a fairly fairly serious deadline to work towards. For people that have had a match for that either they're working on but hasn't been incorporated yet. Or there's an important science area that hasn't matched yet. Now, to follow up, I think what silane mentioned, there's been enormous effort in the community to get ready for this, to put together the metrics to determine how well best science has met by, by the opsins. And says attain the madness to try to sort of put in one place a list of, of, of metrics by science area so that we know things then get dropped. And that's a pizza can read that. The community has started to use this central spreadsheet of metrics to try to clarify in one place where things are and what the status actually is. So at the SAC workshop, those are session, short session on missing match vase with a focus on galactic science. I won't be here, but this finds, you can find that the length here in the notes. And several people on this call very kindly prepared slides to indicate what they're working on, which you can see at the end of that of that of that slide deck. And then Rachel street or TDS tours and nice live notes where the discussion is to transcribe little bit and some actions recommended. I thought it would be good just to make sure people on this call has seen this sort of that. But one list of things we would like people to update so that we all know what we're working on so that Lynn knows what people are working on. Answer that is a path to get them done by the end of December. So our tip my life into my hands and share the screen again, this time with a different spreadsheet. And this is going to look very complicated. So I apologize for that, but it'll now be cn, a Google spreadsheet with some green and some yellow on it. Basically, this is, this is this, this, this list we're trying to put to the other. Put into one place why science area, the metrics that people are working on. And and so you look at the lessor, their science arrow is on the right. Here are the defense people are working on. And in the session, I recommended that you are working on match works. You probably care about the green area isn't spreadsheet. So if you are involved in building one of these, please update their status. And if you have it even more usefully, please provide a link to the code that you've developed. Because that will then form a starting point for your discussions with the team in terms of actually integrating this into math. And then we know there are a few science areas like the interstellar medium, light star clusters, where there's not been a combination of metrics that has been recommended yet. And so it would be very helpful if people with interest in those could at least specify brief to the point of which it could be constructed, the kind of thing they have in mind. And, uh, so in this spreadsheet down at the bottom here, I've mocked up an example of this for parabens favorite science actually for the interstellar medium. And so, yes, so it looks like this. Have you guys. So for example, if you want to measure the extension, perhaps what you need to do is to just get the precision for different, different filters. And so this is an example where if the metric is this simple, all you have to do is to combine the metrics that are already been run for precision and that's your, your figure of merit. So the idea here is to try to stimulate people to, to specify in a nice simple way. I need to do. In the case here, it may be the case that the existing metrics are already sufficient. So that's something that your recommended to check whether, whether this sort of building blocks, these metrics are already been won. If you're wondering, how do I know what those are? What's being run already? The slides haven't been to this. The live notes have a link to this. But there is a page where the project shows you the output of the match for x on the ops them. So that's a good place and look to find out what they're already running. I don't have the link conveniently here unfortunately, but if you follow the link to the slides, you can see it there. So that's the context and the requests. So given that some people in this collaboration we know working on, on, on these determinations. Others are interested but haven't put a metric together. Yeah. I'd like to just echo the request that was made in the midst of metrics session yesterday, which is please one way or the other. If you're either working on the metric, are interested in working on a metric, please update spreadsheet that you see there and if anything is unclear, please just go. I can I can I think firefighting best of my ability. So like livelihood earlier in this discussion. For many science cases, the building blocks are, the metrics are already in place. But there may be others for which the building blocks are not in place yet. And in those cases, it's good to know what's, what's needed. So if you have an interest in a general strategy, please look over the metric spreadsheet, pleased to favor the link in the slides about what's already been run. And then please of data spreadsheet. So that then kind of form the basis for your conversation with Lynn and peace for an emic to the metrics. So that was kinda been dumped them information on anybody. Have any questions or comments anybody has about what's being asked to? Yeah. Well, this paragraph just a 1 I think for a lot of things, I mean, you mentioned ISM nodes spread example. And thanks for drafting that out. But also like for galactic structure in cosmology, I think. I think you're right. I think the base we cause a lot of those are going to be built on top of the foundations like accurate stellar photometry and astrometry. It gets, for example, work like structure. We want, if we want to be able to look at the outward. Basically, if we if we look at the galaxy, yes. You know what, what are the structures that we see right away? What are their characteristics? By dark populations that, yeah, I meant it lists these ages and so on, kinematics. So I think a lot of those I'm just going to be, It's not going to be in terms of the quantities that we measure from the from the LCT imaging. That's more of like the next stage of analysis, right? You know what, once we have that accurate for couple photometry. So I think yeah. Yeah. It's I'm not sure how we would do that in the context of metric. Right? So intensive, making sure that the metrics that you need it being run. What you should do is to specify it to the point at which you can identify which metrics needed. The easiest way to start is probably to go to the list of metrics that have been run on everything and CD8 and build your determination from that. If that's the case, then than the combination to a figure of merit can come later. The important thing is to make sure that the metrics are being run on all of the opsins. For Nathan cosmology in particular. Geoff isn't here, but it's Jeff Canon has a nice notebook that illustrates how he is doing best for satellite galaxies. And so that, that, that might be a good example you can't see in terms of what's, what's been done already or what new development is still required. Acr. And then also the thought that gets into the lung surface brightness work rate if you wear, we want to look at the orange dreams Lucretius structures in numbers. So since you asked that question, I think it's worthwhile people are on the call just showing, showing the list of metrics, right? Just so that you'll know what to look for. So I will go to the, to the, to the slides here that were presented. And this is also, I think, bins in a minute presentations. If you fly through, through here and I'll just say briefly, there is a list of now of course it's refusing. There is a list of of of, of metric evaluations on the existing ones. Which if I can't find it very soon, I'll just send it. I'll put it on the notes after this meeting. Yeah. I guess it's in a different document and hey, sorry about that. I got a long document. After this meeting. I will paste into the live notes. The the link to the to the, to the project maintain page that shows the outcome of the metrics that do exist on the baseline survey. That's probably is things like maps. So number of observations or maps of formal precision, photometry or maps or crowding limit. Or in John's case maps a brown dwarf recovery. That's probably the best place to look first to find out is if your, if the building blocks for your science are being evaluated already. So yeah, thanks for the suggestion. Peri-urban allowed that I meet them. But no, I appreciate it's confusing. There's so many moving parts flying around that. Then there's community metrics. First existing match face and it's all very confusing. But any, anybody listening or watching who has a new science I did want to turn into an evaluation. First place to look is to learn what metrics are being one already. So those lens will come and live notes after this meeting. Okay, So I hope that hasn't hasn't massively confuse everybody. Okay. Yeah. And we're getting some notes from gave livelihoods right now. Okay. Thank you for whoever pays. Money is typing an accident. So we have some some comments, right? Yes, this, this is an issue that was raised again by Dave during the workshop this week. The seed being typed into the leitmotif right now to do with the way that time is allocated. So when you complete it, I guess this is also something that I think would be good to provide them with feedback. By November 24th. Said, Dave, maybe you and I can interact offline to make sure this gets turned into a one pager for feedback to the ECSC. For this. It's okay. I was just complicated enough and I didn't know where the conversation was going. Put it in the notes, so okay. Yeah, That way at least we have him. Okay. All right, so that's two items of feedback that we notice that wonderful, wonderful young stellar objects, photos and one from this trauma to the expert. Experts about this short meeting was already almost ten minutes disaster, ten minutes for the hour. Are there anymore questions or comments about this second issue about providing, about getting ready for metrics by the end of the year that that we should discuss? I'm not I'm not seeing any hands up. I'm not hearing anybody. Think of pots. And I have a guy. There's a comment from force. Do we need, and we may call the final poem Pound. That's much like. First, I'm going to put you on the spot and ask, are you aware of a deficiency already in the way that the metric has been run? Well, I'm I'm just talking about it in the context of Dave's comment because clearly, it seems like there might be a disconnect between what they're saying and what we think the reality should be. Running the metrics bed. But now I have to go all the way back to brain cells that are dead to actually study the actual metric being run. Because it's certainly the case that the high parallax factor observations tend to completely dominate the solution for parallax. So it's just the weight of the data. Throw away all of the high weight data points. You're left with a bush of low weight data points for the parallax factor isn't changing much. And so I don't really understand how they can claim but doesn't make a difference. So I might have to have to work with will or somebody who understands how to go dig in deep to actually read the code or how are they computing their parallax metric? Because it sounds to me as if they're not waiting. That's WTI GHG by the high parallax factor observations appropriately. So again, it's just heartburn. We don't need to pursue it here in real time. But but it would be nice if something got put into the system. But I don't I just don't want to scream. The sky is falling until we can understand what they're doing. So it's not lack of doing something, but somehow the metric doesn't seem to be sensitive on the basis of what the words are saying. So over yeah, I understand that might be a little bit disconcerting. Um, I've put an accommodation into the life mates, which is daddy that you can e-mail, pizza, CC, Chris and myself. We can follow this up. Because I agree if if if in principle it should be worse, but there isn't. If there's a problem in the match phase, then it has to be fixed. Okay? Cool. Okay. All right. Any other comments or questions about the strategy that we should discuss before everyone gets on with that Friday. I don't think I see O'Hare and a so given that way, what I said, a visual medium has gone on for now 50 minutes, which I apologize for. I'm going to suggest that we call the meeting to a close. Let you get on with your day and the DP. So this hub across just one brief comments. And unless we have otherwise, that's myself, Caribbean and Joan will have the next meeting at the regular cadence, which would put it at Friday, December 17th at 12 noon Eastern Eastern time. Is there a strong desire smooth out earlier by a week for holidays and everything else. Just let us know. We can we might do that, but unless we have otherwise, we'll have this again. Friday, December 17th. That 12 name. Alright. So in that case, I think that's a good place as any to give people were five minutes to get on with that day. So thank you all very much. So it's I and then and then you RPG game where you're acting on the schedule. Also, yes, there's a continuum and I can't remember where I finished this coming Thursday. No. I can't remember whether it's this coming Thursday a week from then, but the community paid days will show you that information. So if you're interested, I recommend checking the community page. Thanks there minder. I have a thank you very much, everybody for listening and for participating. And I hope you'll have a good December. And that is mad semester ends well for people. I talk to you all that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Bye. Stop the recording now, paragon, much.
SMWLV Rubin Obs LSST meeting
From John Gizis November 19, 2021
0 plays
0
0 comments
0
You unliked the media.