
	Weekly chat meeting #47: Thursday 6th September 2001
	
participants: Peter Kretschmar, Carol Anne Oxborrow, Stefan Larsson,
	Niels Joergen Westergaard, Sami Maisala
	
Subjects discussed: Time and Place of next SDAST meetings
		Consolidated V2 deliveries: when
		ISDC Consortium meeting and pipeline demo
		ADD updates: new version for ISDC meeting
		Data structure review: AI on all SDAST
		AI list: due dates set to SDAST meeting
		
Action Items:
AI010906_1 ALL	Oct. 2001 Look through ALL data structure templates released
OPEN		with RP3.0 and see whether there are missing templates,
		changes, corrections or updates to the templates, or templates
		that should be removed. All requests for changes to be emailed
		to Marc Turler, PK and CAO.

**** Logging Started : Thu Sep 06 09:27:18 MEST 2001
<peter> Even though I _DID_ only try at 9:28, all seems to work :-) END
> Me too! I was late getting in - and zircon even seems to have survived the
> tenma `upgrade' END
> Let's hope others have it as easy as us. Thanks for telling me all about
> S'n'S's activity - I'd have no idea anything had been happening
> North-of-Copenhagen otherwise! END
<peter> Today is a public holiday in Geneva. But it suits me fine to come in 
now and take off on Monday when Baerbel has a free day. END
> Yes, that sounds like a good idea. I've booked my tickets and hotel room
> for the Consortium meeting - I'll be their for the science part on Weds.
> and Thurs. too. END
> I'll go and rustle up NJW and AH END
*** larsson (~larsson@130.226.216.181) has joined channel #jemxadr
<larsson> Morning!
> Hi Stefan. I hear that congratulations are in order......granddad ! When did
> this happen? END
<larsson> Monday morning (9 AM). A great (arn't they always) little guy. END
> Congratulations! It must be nice to have a little boy in the family after
> having daughters. END
<larsson> Nice for a change, and timely since Susanne have also moved out so
<peter> Especially since we all know that girls are so much more headstrong ;-) 
END
> Mine certainly is! END
<larsson> the house feels a little empty. Fortunatly Linda (and her son lives 
close). END
<larsson> You have a point there Peter. END
*** njw (~njw@heao1.dsri.dk) has joined channel #jemxadr
<peter> To CA: it's all in the genes :-) :-) END
> I'll ring Sami and see if I can get a response from him. END
<njw> Hi, Sorry I'm late END
> Okay, Sami's phone just rings and rings, so we can be fairly sure he 
> won't be joining us. Let's get started. END
> Point one: SDAST meeting, face-to-face: when? where? Personally, I'd prefer
> it after the the ISDC Consortium meeting, in Copenhagen - but I can be
> flexible about the place. END
<larsson> Remined me about Consortium dates. END
> ISDC consortium meeting 26-28 Sept. at ISDC END
<njw> For me it is impossible before the ISDC consortium meeting. I'd prefer to 
have
<njw> the SDAST meeting in Copenhagen. END
> Without Sami, it looks like you non-Copenhagen people could be out voted! END
> Stefan, Peter, your preferences? END
*** smaisala (^smaisala@mizar.astro.helsinki.fi) has joined channel #jemxadr
<peter> OK, for me the first two weeks of October should be possible. 
<peter> END
<peter> Hi Sami, we're just discussing meeting dates. END
<larsson> Copenhagen is OK. I am checking dates.....END
> Hi Sami! We're just discussing the next SDAST meeting - when , where. Looks
<smaisala> Hi everybody! Sorry I'm late. I had serious traffic problems. END
> like it could be in the first two weeks of October. NJW and I prefer Cph as
> venue, but you non-Copenhageners could out-vote us on that one. END
<larsson> What about Hawaii, or Bahamas? END
> First two weeks of October look good for me Peter. What about the rest of
>  you? END
<smaisala> First two weeks seems to be fine. END
<njw> OK for me END
<larsson> Yes but not the fridays (5th or 12th). END
> Hawaii sounds great - sot that's settled! END
<smaisala> I Agree Hawaii! END
> What about 9+10th October? But where? END
> If we're to have the meeting somewhere other than Cph, could I request that
<njw> No one has objected to having it in Cph END
> we have the next two meetings at the other place so that we can all save
> with back-to-back tickets? END
<larsson> 9+10th in Copenhagen is OK for me. END
> Alright so how about we make dates for the next TWO meetings to be held
> here to plane ticket economy, and then the next two after that could be in
> Stockholm or Helsinki. END
<larsson> OK. END
<peter> I agree to the idea with back-to-back tickets. Copenhagen should be OK 
(though I need a new passport). END
> Any objections? END
<larsson> Not from Sunny Stockholm. END
<smaisala> Nope. END
> What about 9+10 October and 9+10 January for the two meetings? END
> Or 18+19 December for the second meeting, if you think Jan 2002 is too far
> away? END
> Passports I can't be responsible for Peter! END
<peter> Having the second in January makes back to back less effective. END
<larsson> December is better (last time I had a 3 month restriction on my
<larsson> tickets). END
> That's true, about the validity of the tickets. So Oct 9+10 and Dec 18+19
<peter> Dec 18+19 is not nice for me, would Dec 11+12 also be OK?
<peter> END
<njw> I can not say anything definite about December since the FM2 calibration 
is
> in Copenhagen. 11+12 Dec is okay with me. END
<njw> coming up. END
<larsson> 11+12 is OK. END
> How many people could be sure to make it on dec. 11+12? END
<smaisala> 11-12 is OK END
> So that's everyone except NJW, and if we want it in december at all, we're
> probably going to have to just hope that NJW can make it. That would be the
<njw> Yes, please go on arranging it in Dec. END
> advantage of having it in Copenhagen - if he's here he' here and if he's not
> there's no wasted plane tickets. END
> So, final decision is Oct 9+10 and Dec 11+12, both meetings in Copenhagen,
> to start at 11.30am the first day and finish around 16.00 the second day.
> The next pair of meetings will then be hosted by ISDC, Stockholm or Helsinki.
> Let me know if you can't make it to Cph in time for a pre-lunch start for the
> meetings. END
<larsson> Times are fine with me.  END
> Sami and Peter? Times okay? END
<smaisala> Times are OK. END
<peter> Should be fine, I usually need to coem the vening before anyway. END
> Next on the agenda: consolidated V2 deliveries: how far along are we?
> You first Peter. END
<peter> No real progress from my side. 
> So when do you expect to make your consolidated deliveries? END
<peter> I've discussed with Ken Ebisawa who will help me with the 
j_bin_***_spectra executables. For the j_bin_***_lc, I'm asking myself if we 
should not move them to V3 - they will NOT be called by Standard Analysis 
anyway. END
<peter> Next week for the still-no-consolidated j_bin_***_spectra, but what we 
discussed about treatment of REST data and pulse-phase binning may not yet be 
included. END
> Why not, if they've got a processing level and all? END
> Stefan how are your V2 deliveries going? END
<larsson> My components are not solid yet but the viscosity is increasing!
<peter> The processing levels are mainly there to have a more flexible 
_interactive_ analysis. END
> If they're not part of Standard Analysis, I would think they are indeed 
> part of V3, so let's move them there. Stefan: when will you actually be
<peter> Same would be true of j_src_lc, btw. END
> delivering _consolidated_ versions of your V2 executables? END
> Yes, Peter, I agree that both sets of binning executables would logically
> both belong in V3, so let's move them there. END
<larsson> I will deliver a new version of j_src_spec this month which should be
> Should the binning tools be gathered into an Interactive (if only for setting
<larsson> solid for what it does. I cant say for certain what the limitations
> the input parameters) module called j_binning or j_int_binning in V3. END
<larsson> will be. END
> Okay, what about you Sami - how's it going with your V2 deliveries? END
> If you're going to put the binning executables into V3 I'd like to know
> how for the ADD, Peter. END
<peter> To Carol Anne: It's not so much the binning tools that go into V3 but 
everything creating lightcurves. It simply does not make too much sense creating 
standard lightcurves for all sources in the FOV while a standardized ...
<peter> spectral extraction has some merit,
<peter> So, please just leave the components as they are, maybe we reshiffle 
again the order ... END
> Okay, let's discuss this offline Peter END
> Sami are you there? END (This feels like the Eurovision Song Contest!)
<smaisala> I have working versions all of my executables. There was problem in 
data structures and I have to make minor changes and redeliver. END 
> So those final consolidated data structures could be delivered quite soon?
> END
> I mean the final consolidated components. END
<smaisala> Yes, I will propably get new versions of datastructures by Friday and 
after that I can start to work. END
> NJW how are you doing with consolidated imaging? END
<njw> No progress in a couple of months, and no chance to get improved imaging/
<peter> To Sami. You should be able to get them already, just look under 
/isdc/dev/templates. On Friday may be the formal delivery of a new templates 
package. END
<njw> source finding before the ISDC meeting. But no components are missing.
<njw> As a sideremark to Peter, I can say that a new version of j_os_reformat
<njw> is now running and it covers FULL, REST, TIME, SPTI, and SPEC. END
> Thanks for your updates guys: I'm working on j_verify this month, and hope
<peter> Thanks! END
> to get it delivered before the consortium meeting, so you won't be hearing
> from me much for the next month (big sighs of relief all round). V2 is
> all consolidated as far as I'm concerned, it's just these `new' V1 componets
> that have me in a tizzy (find that in your dictionaries if you can!). I'll
> get onto the performance data-formatting tool in October. END
> Any comments so far? END
<peter> Yes from me: ...
> Next on the agenda DD: I suppose from the previous discussion V3 has pretty
<peter> Thierry wants to have a demonstration of the state of analysis software 
for all instruments on Tuesday, Sep 25.
> much been pushed back until after the SDAST meeting at the earliest, so
> perhaps we'd better discuss V3 then. 
<peter> So, naturally I'd like to have JEM-X ISSW working better than at the 
June demo for that event. 
> Peter: I'll see what I can do with j_verify by then. END
<peter> It's somewhat worrying not to have an updated j_ima_src_find, because 
this is the link to j_src_spectra.
<peter> But I do understand Niels Jrgen will be _very_ busy this month ...
<peter> Nevertheless, Sami and Stefan especially: please do send me as soon as 
possible your updated software so I can test
<peter> the whole bunch. I do need to update the scripts once more too. END
<peter> Nies Jrgen - can you deliver the new j_os_reformat these days? END
<njw> Yes END
<njw> Perhaps today END
> Can we ALL try to make an extra effort with deliveries between now, and
> say September 20th (Peter needs some integration time too)? END
<smaisala> I agree. END
<larsson> Is that date OK for you Peter, or? END
> Here's and incentive - one packet of Danish Marzipan Bread (Anton Berg -
<peter> Sorry, too late already, as on the 21st I'm leaving for a short trip to 
Tuebingen, where I'll be over the weekend and on Monday. The 17th would be the 
very latest and I would prefer soemthing before that.
> all quality, no rubbish) for every component delivered between now and
<peter> It's not like the request comes completely out of the blue :-) END.
> September 21st (it's a Friday, makes it sort of rounded out). END
> My offer still stands, despite Peter's travel plans...END
> J_verify won't be ready by the 17th - I can promise you that now! END
<larsson> OK Peter. I'll deliver at the end of next week. END
<peter> That's less of a problem, it's not used in scientific analysis on which 
Thierry will concentrate, END
<peter> Thanks Stefan. END
> We'll ALL see what we can do. Next on the agenda: ADD how are the updates
> coming? I made a partial update, version 6.2 during the summer, but
> perhaps we could manage another one for the Consortium Meeting, so please
<smaisala> I make my updates as soon I have redelivered my executables. END
> remember to update your ADD entries at the time of delivery. Any comments?
> END
<njw> N
> Good for you Sami......that's what I like to hear. END
<peter> To CAO: No please just kick us a few more times to actually make the 
updates. END
<larsson> I'll confess. I have sinned. END
> Not again, Stefan! END
<larsson> Sorry. Mam. END
> Please get everything as up to date as possible by Sept.24 guys, then I can
> have it all texed and on the net by 25th Sept and announce it at the
> meeting. END
> Next: Data structures. Over the summer I did a total review of all JEMX
> data structures released with RP3.0 and uncovered a slew of small mistakes
> and one or two real whoppers. However, my knowledge of data structures I
<peter> Very good work Carol Anne! END
> don't actually use is very limited compared to those who do use them, so
> can I put and AI on all of you to fine-comb data structures that you use
> as input or output for your executables (the templates in /templates and
> /templatescc distributed with RP3.0) and let Marc Turler, Peter and myself
> know if there are any changes, corrections, updates that should be made. END
<peter> Yes
> Tis done. END
<larsson> Agreed. END
> Next: what's the activity with the AI list: anything I can move to the
> AI.closed.txt list? PLEASE!!!!! END
> For my part I have initiated making dates for meetings with the hardware
> team to determine: what j_verify should do; which parameters to be monitored
> by osm; parameters and their limits for GTI determination; which parameters
> to be monitored by operators in NRT; which parameters to be monitored for
<peter> AI 19_5 is closed. Discussions are still ongoing what exactly will be 
implemented. END
> long-term performance. Which covers most of my outstanding AIs, and some of
>  NJWs. END
> Thanks Peter END
> Any more? END
<peter> Regarding "which parameters to be monitored by operators in NRT" 
anything that is _not_ in the relevant document written by Nami will not be 
done. So I hope there is not much new coming up, these documents have been 
discussed ...
<peter> for most of his year already. END
> Can you give me a URL for that doc. Peter? END
<peter> See http://isdc.unige.ch/index.cgi?Documents+docop  and "Activities with 
the JEM-X team". END
> What I suggest for the AI list is that all due dates be set to the next
> SDAST meeting and we REALLY make an effort to clear off the entire list
<peter> I'm not saying nothing could be added to the operator tasks, but it must 
be discussed and often should have been discussed months ago. END
> either just before, or during the meeting if needs be. Comments? END
> Thanks for the URL Peter END
<peter> Good idea for the AI list. END
> Unfortunately Peter, it's true that there are about a billion things that
> should have been discussed with the hardware people months ago, but they've
> been so busy just getting something that will work that all these ISDC
> matters are only now floating to the surface of our consciences. Such is
> life. END
<peter> Yes, I understand. They should jsut be aware that adding new tasks for 
our shift team may not always be easy.
> Last on the agenda AOB (another big sigh of relief). Anyone for AOB?
> Yes, I appreciate that Peter. END
<peter> On the other hand, everything that can be monitored automatically is no 
problem and we will do our best to accomodate their wishes. EDN
<peter> Have we really talked about V3? END
> It was decided to leave V3 to the meeting, since we'll all be struggling
> manfully (an womanfully in some cases) with V2 until then. END
<peter> OK, but I do hope sincerely that we make some progress then. END
> Yes V3 must be the focus of the next real meeting, I agree. Any more 
> comments? END
<peter> Sorry if I sound grumpy today, it seems again to me as if I have roughly 
twice as much tasks to finish really soon (not just JEM-X) than can actually 
manage. END
> If it's any consolation Peter, I think we all feel like that at the moment:
> I know I do. END
> If there are no more comments or AOB, then I'll say goodbye and get back
> to doing a complete review of JEM-X User Manual 4.3: I thought that was a
> good place to start finding out what j_verify should do. Unfortunately it's
> 183 pages long.! END
<peter> Good luck! END
> Have a good weekend everyone! Chat with you all next Thursday - let's see
<peter> Adding to Carol Anne's offer of before:
> how many deliveries get done by then!
<peter> The forst to redeliver a consolidated component gets a Swiss chocolate!
<peter> The first, that should have been. END
> Could j_verify be considered `consolidated'? END
<peter> Yes. END
