Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire  Circulation: 15 people (12 chairs, 3 pundits)  Responses: 8 (7 chairs,

Published by Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire  Circulation: 15 people (12 chairs, 3 pundits)  Responses: 8 (7 chairs,"— Presentation transcript:

1 CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire  Circulation: 15 people (12 chairs, 3 pundits)  Responses: 8 (7 chairs, 1 pundit)  In your opinion (somewhat speculative given that the observations have yet to be made), is the Cycle 5 allocation between normal, LP, and VLP likely to produce science at the high levels expected from Chandra? Was the time allocated between normal, LP, and VLP proposals appropriate? If not, what should the allocation be?  8: balance good for Cycle 5 1)Comment: panel had freedom to move time between LP and VLP and voted not to do so 2)Recommend: review, using metrics, in Cycle 7 + 3)Recommend: monitor science balance of VLPs

2 CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire (cont) With respect to your panel, was the quality of the lower-ranking approved LP or VLP proposals (those just above the pass/fail line) higher or, at least as high, as the highest-ranking, but unapproved, normal proposals (those just below the pass/fail line)? 7: approved VLP/LP higher quality than just failing GO, 1 disagreed 2 said opposite: failing LP was of higher quality than passing GO Agreed that standards should be higher for LP/VLP given large time allocation

3 CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire (cont)  In your opinion, was there a significant difference (other than observing time) in the nature of the LP and VLP programs? For example, did the VLP proposals address science questions that would not have been addressed properly otherwise or, was the nature of the approved programs different in some way, such as the VLP being more of an archive or "Legacy" nature than the LPs.  5 Y, 2 N, general feeling that Legacy value is higher and that proposals which were similar but longer than GOs did not fare as well.

4 CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire (cont)  Do you have any recommendations regarding the peer review process for consideration in planning future cycles?  Generally happy with organisation  Big Project Panel: –more pre-defined structure for BPP, work w/chair in advance –Allow time to read highly ranked LP/VLP, add 1 day?! –Mandate proper presentation of highly ranked proposals  Topical panels: –circulation of panel member names < review –List of proposals by secondary and primary reviewer –LAN in panel rooms –Projector for spreadsheet –Pre-plan discussion order within panels –Telecon is hard –Specific allocation for high-risk proposals

5 CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO Changes in Cycle 6  Operations/observation planning: –Pitch angle restrictions – impact on time constrained observations > 50 ksecs –Ability to link archive and observing proposals –Bakeout: see later in agenda  Peer Review planning: –Website: >track reviewer status, travel + address information >personalized access to proposals, reports etc >access to Non-disclosure forms, review information –Proposal distribution: CD and/or hardcopy, to be collected at review –Reports: TBD, we hope to move away from diskettes

6 CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO IIR OBSERVATION (1)  CONTROL OF OBSERVERS’ PROPOSAL INFORMATION –Proper measures may not have been taken to fully protect and control information provided in the investigators’ proposals. >Current review process could allow inappropriate dissemination of sensitive information (e.g., salaries, intellectual capital). –Cycle 5 review did not verify collection/disposal of proposer CD’s –Requirement for individual salary data is concern of proposers –RECOMMENDATION: Investigate additional controls to reduce the possibility of inappropriate dissemination of sensitive data, including minimizing proposal distribution, verification of proper disposal of proposal data, and elimination or masking of individual salary information.

7 CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO Response to IIR “Observation”  CXC will review procedures and controls for safeguarding sensitive information, areas to be considered include: –Completeness of procedures for safeguarding proprietary information –Increased training for all involved in peer review –Earlier collection of non-disclosure forms >Minimize number of people with access –Restricting transfer of electronic files –Verifying destruction of hardcopies and CDs –Methods for investigating misuse of information –Budget reviewers need for information –Physical security  Timescale: completed to support Cycle 6 review

8 CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO CXC User Communication  Website: information, documentation, software etc. Website  Helpdesk search, submission, answer questions Helpdesk  USINT: observation planning USINT  Electronic Bulletins and Announcements: as needed, approximately monthly Electronic Bulletins and Announcements  Newsletter: annual (electronic and hardcopy) Newsletter  AAS Exhibit: twice a year  Workshops: –CIAO : 5 to date, ~25 people per workshopCIAO –Calibration: annual since 2001Calibration  Electronic announcements of data readiness

9 CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO Helpdesk Statistics MonthTicket Activity During MonthTicket Status as of End of Month EnteredClosedNet Change in MonthActiveDeferredTotal October 0241426511 November 02 646319312 December 02 4642415116 January 0359 015116 February 036167-67310 March 03366359715217 April 034550-510212 May 03525310111 June 0344311321324 July 0350401031334 August 038398-1515419 September 03 4449-59514

10 CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO Topic Distribution of Helpdesk Tickets

11 CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO Observation Planning: USINT  Procedures – posted on web pageposted on web page –All Observers/PIs are contacted to confirm observational parameters –Allowed changes are made at CXC and confirmed with Observer/PI –Restricted changes (e.g. instrument, coordinates, constraints) must be justified and approved by CDO. CDO review includes check for conflicts with other programs

12 CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO Cost Review Results (FDS) ------------------------------------------------------ budget requestno. ofbudget approved /fair-shareproposals f-s intermediate as-requested -------------- --------- ----- ------------ ------------ 0.006 0.50-0.957 --7 0.95-1.05143 --143 1.06-1.1516 1.16-1.3011 227 1.31-1.6010 1.61-2.107 16- 2.11-3.502

Download ppt "CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire  Circulation: 15 people (12 chairs, 3 pundits)  Responses: 8 (7 chairs,"

Similar presentations

GEOSS Data Sharing Principles. GEOSS 10-Year Implementation Plan 5.4 Data Sharing The societal benefits of Earth observations cannot be achieved without.

GEOSS Data Sharing Principles. GEOSS 10-Year Implementation Plan 5.4 Data Sharing The societal benefits of Earth observations cannot be achieved without.
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Data Management and Communication (DMAC) Standards Process Julie Bosch NOAA National Coastal Data Development.

Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Data Management and Communication (DMAC) Standards Process Julie Bosch NOAA National Coastal Data Development.
Implementation Council Meeting Structure and Resources Background: The Implementation Council (Council) roles and responsibilities are described in the.

Implementation Council Meeting Structure and Resources Background: The Implementation Council (Council) roles and responsibilities are described in the.
THE STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STEP 1 PUBLIC AND COMMITTEE PROPOSAL STAGE PUBLIC AND COMMITTEE PROPOSAL CLOSING DATE FIRST TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING.

THE STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STEP 1 PUBLIC AND COMMITTEE PROPOSAL STAGE PUBLIC AND COMMITTEE PROPOSAL CLOSING DATE FIRST TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING.
INDEPENDENT SECTOR FACULTY AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROJECT EXPENDITURES AND DOCUMENTATION MAY 20, 2013 cIcu Project.

INDEPENDENT SECTOR FACULTY AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROJECT EXPENDITURES AND DOCUMENTATION MAY 20, 2013 cIcu Project.
From Paper to Paperless Straight-through Electronic Disclosure and Abolition of Paid Announcement Requirement (The Electronic Disclosure Project) Press.

From Paper to Paperless Straight-through Electronic Disclosure and Abolition of Paid Announcement Requirement (The Electronic Disclosure Project) Press.
CUC 22-23 Oct 2013 Chandra Director’s Office Cycle 15 Peer Review  18-21 June 2013, Hilton Logan Airport  No major changes in Cycle 15  13 topical panels,

CUC Oct 2013 Chandra Director’s Office Cycle 15 Peer Review  June 2013, Hilton Logan Airport  No major changes in Cycle 15  13 topical panels,
Chubaka Producciones Presenta :.

Chubaka Producciones Presenta :.
CXC Response to June 04 Report 1.Bakeout Status: Paul Plucinsky 2.CIAO upgrade information: Jonathan McDowell 3.DS9 and visualization scripts: Jonathan.

CXC Response to June 04 Report 1.Bakeout Status: Paul Plucinsky 2.CIAO upgrade information: Jonathan McDowell 3.DS9 and visualization scripts: Jonathan.
19 Oct 2005Chandra Users' Committee Cycle 7 Peer Review: 21-23 June 2005  747 proposals, 12 panels, 101 reviewers  Hilton, Logan Airport.

19 Oct 2005Chandra Users' Committee Cycle 7 Peer Review: June 2005  747 proposals, 12 panels, 101 reviewers  Hilton, Logan Airport.
Chandra Users’ Committee, 25-26 Apr 2007 Chandra Director’s Office Chandra Director’s Office Proposal Cycle 9  661 submitted proposals  *5.5 oversubscribed.

Chandra Users’ Committee, Apr 2007 Chandra Director’s Office Chandra Director’s Office Proposal Cycle 9  661 submitted proposals  *5.5 oversubscribed.
Chandra Users’ Committee, 29-30 Oct 2009 Chandra Director’s Office Cycle 11 Peer Review Proposal Numbers:  668 submitted proposals  *5.6 oversubscribed.

Chandra Users’ Committee, Oct 2009 Chandra Director’s Office Cycle 11 Peer Review Proposal Numbers:  668 submitted proposals  *5.6 oversubscribed.
2012 JANUARY Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

2012 JANUARY Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
Chandra Users' Committee, 27 April 2010 Chandra Director’s Office Cycle 12  CfP Release: Dec 15 2009  GTO Deadline: 11 March 2010  GO Deadline: 18 March.

Chandra Users' Committee, 27 April 2010 Chandra Director’s Office Cycle 12  CfP Release: Dec  GTO Deadline: 11 March 2010  GO Deadline: 18 March.
Chandra Users’ Committee, 17-18 Oct 2006 Chandra Director’s Office Chandra Director’s Office Proposal Cycle 8  725 submitted proposals  *6.4 oversubscribed.

Chandra Users’ Committee, Oct 2006 Chandra Director’s Office Chandra Director’s Office Proposal Cycle 8  725 submitted proposals  *6.4 oversubscribed.
Planning a Mentoring Program A CALENDER FOR A FIRST-YEAR TEACHERS’ PROGRAM.

Planning a Mentoring Program A CALENDER FOR A FIRST-YEAR TEACHERS’ PROGRAM.
Users' Committee, 25 Oct 2010 Chandra Director’s Office Cycle 12 Peer Review  21-25 June 2010, Hilton, Logan Airport  No major changes in Cycle 12 

Users' Committee, 25 Oct 2010 Chandra Director’s Office Cycle 12 Peer Review  June 2010, Hilton, Logan Airport  No major changes in Cycle 12 
Director's Office Chandra Users’ Committee, 19-20 Sept 2007 Chandra Cycle 9  661 submitted proposals  *5.5 oversubscribed (based on time)  48 LP, 10.

Director's Office Chandra Users’ Committee, Sept 2007 Chandra Cycle 9  661 submitted proposals  *5.5 oversubscribed (based on time)  48 LP, 10.
Chandra Users’ Committee, 6-7 Apr 2009 Chandra Director’s Office Cycle 11  CfP Release: Dec 15 2008  POG, final A Eff : 15 Jan 2009  GTO: 43 proposals.

Chandra Users’ Committee, 6-7 Apr 2009 Chandra Director’s Office Cycle 11  CfP Release: Dec  POG, final A Eff : 15 Jan 2009  GTO: 43 proposals.
25 June 2002Chandra Users’ Committee, Belinda Wilkes XMM/Chandra Schedules AO date 15 Dec 2002 Deadline 15 March 2003 Peer Review ~15 June 2002 AO date.

25 June 2002Chandra Users’ Committee, Belinda Wilkes XMM/Chandra Schedules AO date 15 Dec 2002 Deadline 15 March 2003 Peer Review ~15 June 2002 AO date.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google