Present: Paolo, Erminia, Francesco, Ludo, Eiichiro, Gao, Pete, Radek, Jon, Hans Kristian, Enrique
Notetaker: Erminia
- Approval of last meeting minutes (March 30) next time, March 23rd minutes approved
- No response from ESA about our minutes, we interpret this as approval on their end
- Updates from agencies
- Detector studies
- UK: formal kick-off meeting with ESA yesterday, agreeing on the scope of the study. ESA was very keen on consolidating overall requirements on detector subsystems (including optical, focal plane layout but also thermal constraints). Meeting agreed (April 27th) between UK team and LiteBIRD team including Ludo, Baptiste, Thierry, Francesco. SC will be informed. Clarified that this work focuses only on medium and high frequency but any technology would also apply to low frequencies. summary of requirements expected in 4 weeks — this will feed into the Italian studies.
- Italian team having internal discussions on workplan and scope of work. Roma/Pisa/Genova/Milano currently included. Not sure about the exact involvement of ESA in this (i.e., dedicated support or consultation only), it is possible that general detector studies will be under ASI umbrella and only specific results related to LiteBIRD will be submitted to ESA. SC and MHFT PO will be kept in the loop.
- IGB meeting
- Proposed by Ludo to discuss the project study groups following Eiichiro initial organization — drawn from PTEP sub-sections. Kick-off meeting going ahead next week, IGB clarification on scope and organization needed according to Ludo. Initial proposal was to set up teams focusing on writing a paper and not science groups or new JSGs. Radek: topics currently proposed are very broad so need to identify what would be in those papers, Eiichiro comments that the people who volunteered would coordinate that and it could be more than one paper. Hans Kristian: around Phase-B time more science focused groups will be needed and it is important to not see this activity as a precursor of that. Eiichiro is happy to adapt/change the process if IGB decides so on Friday. Ludo/Radek: the leads are maybe not representative of the PTEP effort and more people should be involved. Enrique: encourage junior and gender balance.
- Detector studies
- Voting policy
- Quick summary from Paolo (as per email). Radek’s view is that a vote should be following an agreed decision by consensus, i.e, the vote is a ratification rather than an actual vote. He suggests that we stick to this but recognise that there could be an exception that needs to be handled differently. Noted that the two proposals on the table are different but could have similar time delays. Francesco: Radek’s version is very similar to original in what it requires so we might as well leave as it is. Ludo: for very important issues (like governance) it is really important to have consensus rather than vote by majority.
- Conversation to be continued next time.
- Quick summary from Paolo (as per email). Radek’s view is that a vote should be following an agreed decision by consensus, i.e, the vote is a ratification rather than an actual vote. He suggests that we stick to this but recognise that there could be an exception that needs to be handled differently. Noted that the two proposals on the table are different but could have similar time delays. Francesco: Radek’s version is very similar to original in what it requires so we might as well leave as it is. Ludo: for very important issues (like governance) it is really important to have consensus rather than vote by majority.
- Gruber conference SOC
- Ludo talked to Jan Tauber who enrolled Bruce Partridge and Marco Bersanelli. Also Ludo and Jan. Ludo proposed Matthieu Tristram. There will be Masashi and another Japanese. Room from another two or three people from Europe. Ludo to send email to SC to solicitate volunteers.