1. What will it mean to be a gravitational wave astronomer?
Summary by:
Ben Owen, scribe
B. Sathyaprakash, moderator

2. Stan Whitcomb, instrumentalist
The story of infrared astronomy
Community evolved from do-it-yourself to makers of data products for customers
Some individuals became just astronomers, some moved on to other instruments
Thinks GW will not be like IR:
Fewer crossover sources
Collaboration size & authorship intimidate
Borderline detections need instrumentalists

3. Alberto Vecchio, theorist
Papers X, Y, and Z need
Catalogs of individual events
Catalogs of predicted waveforms (source parameters)
Data analysis algorithms (statistics)
Population evolution models & codes
All sky online survey to get pointing info
Communication infrastructure, institution MoU
Are we ready for the unexpected?
Is bidding for telescope time part of GW astronomy?

4. What is a GW astronomer?
Some people are, but don’t call themselves such
Is a GW physicist different from a GW astronomer?
Testing no-hair theorem vs. BH demographics
Will a heterogeneous community self-identify and use facilities in different ways?
No clear consensus
“Yes” from previous experience of astronomers
“No” from GW; after all it’s the same data
Self-identification vs. practical reality?

5. Data accessibility – THE issue
Proprietary
Discovery
Reward (esp. young)
Complexity of data
Marginality of data
Embarrassing non-discoveries
Public
Taxpayer money
Increased science output
Enhances support & builds community
Proprietary period?

6. Data products
Which products for which customers? Which sources (affects proprietary period too)?
Database of events for each source class
“Raw” calibrated h(t) so outsiders can do their own analysis of archived data?
Problem: instrumental knowledge gets stale
Tied in to data access thread
Broad consensus: accessibility must/will increase
No consensus on timing, but clear trend: sooner

7. Bidding for “telescope time”
Consensus: Yes, this will be an issue
For GW it means computing resources (how you “point” an ear not an eye)
And frequency band: Broad or narrow? Where if narrow?
Right now tuning the band means instrument is offline for 6 months
Need to plan now for tunable mirrors, xylophones, or other solutions in 20 years

8. Expect the unexpected Consensus: YES!
Does too much planning mean we lose a source that wasn’t in the plan?
LISA removal of white dwarf “noise”
LIGO burst analyses assume duration & band
Argument for keeping “raw” h(t) around
“If I knew what I was going to get, it wouldn’t be research!”