2022-02-17 Meeting notes

1:04

Words from Randy

Randy

• March 8 SSC meeting - slides can be similar, but should go into a bit more depth on a technical issue/upgrade on an additional slide

  • Using the next SA meeting (March 3) to go over the drafts from last time

  • This time will include expanded AO slides and metrics

  • It will be a hybrid meeting, but at least 8 SSC people are planning to come. We will stage outside the room and file in for our presentation. Chien-Hsiu will help Josh with the MOSFIRE presentation, or might summarize what has happened with the ToO distribution over the last year (possibly including the Foley-Fillipenko relation).

• Akamai intern program! Promoting! Looking for projects and advisors. Link for more info is here. Projects should be submitted 2/25.

• A KOA archive scientist is needed. Have feedback on how KOA should be ingesting raw and pipeline data, formats, etc. Let John and Randy know if you are interested.

  • Level of involvement is ~10 hrs a month, sometimes a bit more for meetings. Attending meetings and writing requirements.

1:14

Words from John

• Work with the KOA team! Real time ingestion just turned now for KCWI.

• KPF will be arriving on time.

5-10 minutes

1:17

Instrument software tasks

Kyle

Jeff’s group is making a push to track instrument software issues via Jira. Yes, this is not new. Yes, it is a different Jira board than what we used before. No, thankfully, it is not a new Jira board.

https://keckobservatory.atlassian.net/browse/SWOPS

• Trying to track all of the instrument challenges that need software attention. Issues tab lists them, and shows if they are assigned to someone.

• If you have something that has been on the backburner for a while and needs some software attention, put it on the list! They will be trying reprioritize the list every month.

• This doesn’t merge with the ECR system. Not daylogs or ECR; cross-referencing will be needed. Issues here can be promoted to ECRs as needed.

• Issues can be added by adding it yourself, emailing Kyle, calling, visiting, etc.

• If an issue is marked done, a daylog should be submitted about it. At least notes should be added to the issue, but a daylog would be preferred.

15 min

1:29

On-site observers

Randy

At some point in the future WMKO will open back up to on-site observers. This discussion could cover what conditions would enable this and what safety measures we might need to put in place. We could also discuss a time frame for reopening.

• OA shifts are scheduled for Remote Ops in March and April.

• Rules are starting to relax as the covid rates drop.

• Jim: On-site operations has the advantage of learning how the telescope operates, plus better communication.

• Randy: OAs are captive in the remote ops. We need to be respectful of their space.

• Greg: Some eating and drinking needs to be allowed in the rooms.

• Carlos: Before Omicron, it felt safe in the office. With Omicron it doesn’t particularly. If new case rates drop to <20/day, and overall cases < 100, that would feel safer.

• Rosalie: How about requiring N95s in the room, for SAs, OAs, and observers? They would need to be provided.

• Randy: That is a good idea. An additional idea is having the observers take a rapid test before working in remote ops. By the way, SAs can adjust where they support and what the rules are (how eating is handled, etc.) on their nights. OAs should have the same and higher power over the rules.

• Greg: Require proof of vaccination, plus boosting if applicable, negative rapid test.

• Carolyn: Move the observers to a different table/further down the bank of desks.

• Sherry: The zoom/polycom is too far for observers to see if they sit further away. Move the whole station to make it easier.

• Kyle: Separate zoom stations for OAs and observers?

• Sherry and Carolyn: Microphone interference is a problem with that scenario.

• Randy says we will have the OAs separate in different rooms until March/April/May?

• Jim: I would like to see us have criteria to turn off observers coming back. Have a page that lays out the criteria so observers can see, which includes a link to statistics to see if we are above or below cutoffs on this island.

• Randy: We can’t set arbitrary levels to stop/start observing. It didn’t work before as a tripwire.

• Randy: Masks, rules, testing, respecting space seem like the plan.

• Carlos: if we feel like observers need to test every day, it is probably not safe to have observers here. OAs are in a space with them for hours.

• Kyle: If Keck is allowing us to have meetings without masks, then it would be safe to have observers.

• Randy: The world is far from wearing masks. We do have observers who will be happy to be alone in remote ops. Is the risk posture we are taking with staff working together on the summit vs visiting instrumentation staff like Mike Fitzgerald working with Greg vs having observers here.

• John: We need to consider essential business needs (summit staff working together) instead of desires (observers working onsite).

• Carlos: We can’t see the future. We need to set some boundaries and be flexible. We are letting SSC members come in person, and we are not yet safe enough to have SAs in the rooms during the presentations. That is not safe yet.

• Randy: The risk is dropping now with the omicron wave dropping off. We will still be taking preventative measures. We will let observers come back on site with the warning that if another wave comes, their reservations will be cancelled.

• Carlos: If observers will lose half of the experience of working in remote ops, what is gained by having them here?

• Kyle: Observers do prefer to come to get out of their normal lives to focus on observing.

• Greg: Students learn a lot more in person. Especially if they can get tours of the telescope.

• Randy: Proposal: Allow observers back April 1st, with safety rules matching the risk, can be canceled if a new wave starts.

• Kyle: Can the OAs be in one remote ops and observers in the second remote ops?

• Carolyn: OAs will be in remote ops 1 unless they are truly uncomfortable.

2:14

SA Representatioon on ICCB?

Josh

ICCB (Instrument Change Control Board) wants to know if one SA is sufficient. Do we as a group want to have another person to represent us, perhaps to provide a broader base of experience? CCBs getting a bit more structure, so this may have value, but is more work for us.

• Josh is our rep, plus Grant, Kyle, Dwight, Marc, maybe Adam V.

• ICCB has been doing a lot of rubber stamping. A second SA would be good for instrument coverage and simply because the changes affect us the most.

• ICCB mostly emails, although it meets once a month.

• Much of it is checking if the change is a good idea, if the documentation is complete, and how will you test it? They see projects as they are proposed and as they complete.

• We need a second person, who might be voluntold if no one volunteers. Let Randy know!