From: <Tony.Wong_at_email.protected>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:09:23 +1000

Warwick,

I agree with everything you said. Only comment is that attending the SKA
reference group meeting last Thursday in Sydney made me a little skeptical
that there will be a lot of progress on SKA to report at the ASA. It's fine
to have a combined Gemini/SKA session if that's what's been done before, but
the bias should definitely be on Gemini, where there are actual results to
report. In other words, I think the SOC should look skeptically on any
"visionary"/political talks - though they can't always be avoided, they
rarely tell us much new.

Tony

-- 
==================================================================
Tony Wong, ARC-CSIRO Linkage Postdoctoral Fellow
CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility        +61-2-9372-4399
School of Physics, University of New South Wales   +61-2-9385-5470
E-mail: Tony.Wong_at_csiro.<!--nospam-->au
FAX: +61-2-9372-4310
URL: http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/twong
==================================================================
> From: Warrick Lawson <w.lawson_at_adfa.<!--nospam-->edu.au>
> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:26:39 +1000
> To: <c.wright_at_adfa.<!--nospam-->edu.au>, <Tony.Wong_at_csiro.<!--nospam-->au>, <w.lawson_at_adfa.<!--nospam-->edu.au>,
> <carterb_at_usq.<!--nospam-->edu.au>, <john.lattanzio_at_sci.<!--nospam-->monash.edu.au>,
> <kate.brooks_at_csiro.<!--nospam-->au>, <melanie_at_hilbert.<!--nospam-->maths.utas.edu.au>,
> <nickl_at_phm.<!--nospam-->gov.au>, <sdr_at_aaoepp.<!--nospam-->aao.gov.au>, <smaddison_at_swin.<!--nospam-->edu.au>
> Subject: planned sessions
> 
> hi everyone
> 
> Thanks for your comments re the various targetted sessions under
> consideration for ASA2006.  I would have replied sooner if it were
> not for teaching commitments.  I'm slowly preparing an email for
> distribution via John O'Bryne that will highlight to the community
> our various proposals for targetted sessions and/or workshops, etc.
> BTW, all of which I support.
> 
> To briefly summarise what I see as the current situation, and if I've
> simply restated what one or more of you have said, then it's because
> I entirely agree with you!
> 
> (i) there will be a Gemini/MNRF session, and indeed the ASA2006 will
> subsume the Gemini/SKA MNRF 1-day workshop that is usually held about
> 1 month before the ASA.  Just in case anyone panics about the time
> implications; at last years MNRF meeting there was only about 4 hours
> of talks, and the rest of the day seemed to be spent wining and dining.
> I should have gone ...  Of those 4 hours, about 2 hours of talks were
> on general matters such as facilities and science that I think would
> of interest to the community, with the other 2 hours consisting of
> specialised talks on software and instrumentation that (in the context
> of the ASA) might be better diverted to posters or a splinter
> session.  Discussions on this matter, i.e. the highlighting of a
> Gemini session,
> were held some time ago with people such as Gary Da Costa and Lister
> Staveley Smith, and there is wide-spread support for it.  I would be
> very surprised if we did not receive requests for at least 2 hours of
> presentations based on Gemini research anyway, so I don't see any
> problem with us pooling these talks together into a Gemini (and SKA)
> session, or even two depending upon demand. There is also a political
> element to this; I'm sure the ASA will be inviting ARC bureaucrats
> along to this session.
> 
> (ii) I'm fully behind the Education session, and support the notion
> of permitting someone proposing a talk for the Edu session to also
> propose a second science contribution.  Such a position doesn't
> indicate that a speaker in the Edu session will be automatically
> allowed to give a science talk.  That decision is entirely up to us
> as the SOC.
> 
> (iii) Garry Da Costa has indicated the best time for the PASA review
> would be immediately before the formal AGM, and that it should take
> the format of a 1-hour discussion lead probably by John. I don't have
> a counterview on this; Gary's idea seems entirely reasonable to me.
> Right now, I can't tell you the LOC's proposed date for the AGM but
> I'll find out.
> 
> (iv) Women in Astronomy session or workshop.  At this early stage
> it could be either.  A formal session might well attract more of an
> audience.  A less-formal lunchtime workshop might be more effective
> as a forum for discussion.
> 
> What my email will indicate is the targetted sessions or workshops
> we would like to plan.  But what we actually do, and the length or
> format of these sessions will ultimately depend on support from the
> community.  We obviously can't run any particular session if we
> don't get a sufficient number of quality proposals for presentations.
> 
> And on a last matter, (v) Mike Dopita will deliver the Harley Wood
> Lecture. I'm currently negotiating for access to the Visions Theatre
> at the National Museum of Australia, which is a superb venue (both
> the Museum and the Theatre). I hope we will get this for free. Our
> preferred date for the lecture is Tuesday July 4, as the LOC's
> nominal date for the conference dinner is Wednesday July 5.  These
> dates might be reversed depending on availability of the venues.
> 
> all the best
> Warrick
> 
> PS.  If anyone hugely disagrees with anything I've written above,
> I'm sure you'll let me know!
> 
> -- 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> + Associate Professor Warrick Lawson                          +
> + School of Physical, Environmental and Mathematical Sciences +
> + UNSW_at_ADFA                             phone: (02) 6268 8810 +
> + Canberra ACT 2600                       fax: (02) 6268 8786 +
> + AUSTRALIA                       email: w.lawson_at_adfa.<!--nospam-->edu.au +
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Received on 2006-04-22 23:09:37