Notes taken by Francesco
Paolo: Brief introduction with update for HKE
Ludo summarizes previous discussion
PN: regardless of the SGS international structure, do we need an european coordination or not?
At the level of HW, we agree.
LM: not only HW, also links, data archive, other technical management (all under infrastructure).
PN: we need a management of the pipelines, and analysis procedures
LM: this is the key argument we disagree. We don’t have to discuss pipelines at european level. We need international discussion for this.
This will imply a purely european pipeline, not consistent with
PN: we are not thinking of an european pipeline. Pipelines will be coordinated and agreed on the global SGS.
Do we need an european coordination for european contribution to pipelines too?
LM: difficult to be sure today, since we don’t have a clear plan for the global SGS.
It is important for CNES to be sure there are efforts on the SGS side and Data Analysis. They will not review it, but want to have proposals. They are not taking responsibilities yet, but monitoring it.
By the end of phase A2, we need a better plan.
This is why we need to find a way to make progress in a very short timescale.
Making sure the discussion on SGS starts asap.
PN: international collaboration taking care of something: what do you have in mind
AZ: in the case of Euclid we have MLA (multi lateral agreement) to share responsibilities.
The SGS is under the responsibility of ASI. ASI is reporting to ESA the progress of SGS.
Is not ASI to create the pipelines.
ASI has the responsibility to deliver to calibrate the data. The scientific results are outside the SGS, they are under responsibility of the Science WGs, not under SGS responsibility.
PN: for Euclid, it is not ASI to select the best pipeline. it is done by science WG.
difficult to understand the disagreements
Is it useful an european-level structure?
the pipelines don’t need to follow borders.
The SGS should be collecting results from WGs and reporting to the proper hierarchical level.
My preference would be ASI taking charge of SGS level for LiteBIRD, not only for Europe. In terms of task sharing, France has MHFT in charge already.
PN: we still don’t know how Jaxa wants to organize at the global level.
IC = instrument coordinator (old version of MHFT-PO structure)
EC: to go to phase B agencies should be involved in SGS and convinced of the plan.
RS: Japan is not ready to start dealing with SGS. Masashi may be trying to get some time.
The Project Scientist in in charge of SGS organization
PN: I am not sure. This is a slide by Masashi
FP: the IOT, IMo, DA should be divided in
- implementation (writing, validating, running the pipelines)
The committee proposed can be a EU SGS governance body with responsibilities:
- defining the role of EU GS into global SGS
- make a plan
- represent europe in the SGS discussions
for MHFT-PO we discussed years ago the definition of the governance. Still ongoing. It is a long process.
We think it is too early to give governance power
Leave the governance discussion in the Eu collaboration board.
PN: what is the process of decision taking in the Eu governance Board?
representation based or function based?
LM: we can decide that.
PN: Mandate and executive power of the EU SGS committee
LM: too early to assign executive power.
Representation vs function in the Exec board.
Power of the exec board.
- deciding an approval mechanism