board_resolutions_feb_2006

SOAR Board Meeting, February 1-2, 2006
Resolutions
The Board requests the Director to prepare an accounting of the monetary, manpower and in-kind contributions that have been made to date by each SOAR partner toward telescope construction, commissioning, operations, and repairs. The updated version should be available in advance of the next face-to-face board meeting. This accounting is intended to serve as a data base for a discussion on the balance of partners' contributions vs. their respective shares in the project.

The Board endorses the concept of a Brazilian site for the archiving of and access to all SOAR data. The Board looks forward to further discussion of the details for implementation of such a site at the next Board meeting.

The Board appreciated the presentation of data archiving and access issues by Chris Smith. The Board agrees that the default proprietary period for data is 18 months from date the data were obtained. Requests to alter the proprietary period should be made to the responsible authority for each partner, and approved changes will be forwarded to the Director. The Board further agrees that there is no proprietary period for metadata, including image headers, unless project PIs request a proprietary period for this information as well. Each partner's responsible authority will also provide the Director with unique project identification numbers. Each partner is asked to identify their responsible authority to the Director as soon as possible.

The SOAR Board recommends a minimum of 35% with a goal of 50% of science availability of nights for the SOAR Telescope in semester 2006B. The Board understands that this fraction is determined by the on-going repairs to the telescope and commissioning of instruments at the telescope and the uncertainty in the delivery time of the Spartan Camera. Science availability will increase if there are delays in instrument delivery, commissioning, or telescope repairs. The Board expects that the Goodman Spectrograph will be available only in service observing mode.

The Board thanks the Director for his very careful assessment of the needs and estimations of timescales and costs for the repairs to the SOAR Telescope. The Board agrees that the replacement of the bogies is a high priority, and asks the Director to proceed expeditiously with their replacement. The Board understands that the total costs are expected to be $23,000, including contingencies. The Board also believes that planning and detailed design work should be undertaken promptly, as resources permit, for the repairs to the windscreen, the additional shutter motor and brake assembly, the relocation of the shutter electronics box, and improved louvers for the exhaust fans. The Board expects that the combined costs of the primary links lateral supports, the replacement of the bogies, and the planning and design work will remain under the $800,000 cap specified as Board resolution 4 at the March 2005 Board meeting. The Board looks forward to a further discussion of the repairs to the shutter, and the optimal scheduling of those repairs, at its next meeting or in a telecon within the next few months.

The Board wishes to resolve imbalances in the financial and in-kind contributions to the SOAR Telescope program. This includes the issue of staffing support pledged by the partners in the SOAR Consortium Memorandum (item 6). The Board is also concerned with paybacks to partners whose contributions to the repairs budget approved in Resolution 4 at the March 2005 Board meeting and subsequent to that meeting differ from their proportionate share. These two issues may be related and the Board hereby appoints a subcommittee to study these problems and prepare a summary of the issues and present recommendations to the Board at its next face-to-face meeting. The subcommittee members will include Albert Bruch (Brazil), Alistair Walker (NOAO), Paul Hunt (Michigan State), and Bruce Carney (UNC). The Board expects that recommendations will be consistent with the SOAR Agreement and Memorandum. Some, but not all, of the issues to be discussed include the following.


What purposes might additional contributions be required and/or valuable?

What forms of repayment for such contributions are possible? Which are recommended, other than re-allocating observing time shares?
If a partner is unable to supply a staff member, as pledged, but another partner is so able, what forms of repayment would be appropriate? Would Board approval be required?

The Board wishes to formalize the processes by which "facility instruments" move from construction to routine use at SOAR. Specifically, the Board expects that each instrument pass a series of tests prior to shipment, and then a series of additional tests on the telescope to verify that the instrument meets its science requirements. Following successful completion of these procedures, responsibility for that instrument would pass from the instrument PI to SOAR. The Board asks each instrument PI to work with the Director to develop appropriate pre-shipment, post-shipment, and final acceptance test procedures. The Board asks that these procedures be reviewed by the Director, in consultation with the SAC, and that the results of the review, along with their recommendations, be provided to the Board.

The Goodman Spectrograph must have a set of on-telescope acceptance test procedures developed to verify it meets its science requirements.

The Spartan Camera has a set of accepted pre-shipment and post-shipment test procedures, but still needs a set of procedures for final on-telescope acceptance.

The Board expects that similar documents will be prepared for the remaining first generation facility instrument, the SOAR Integral Field Spectrograph.

The Board expects to see such pre-shipment and on-telescope acceptance procedures for STELES and the SOAR Adaptive Module, as well as all future instruments.