2017-08-08

Introductory remarks

• Where host meeting minutes? Confluence SST page. 
• Name change? Go with 'ASKAP continuum meeting’.

Clarify direction of meetings over coming months

• More data available on CASDA over coming months, therefore more SST involvement. Anticipate requirement for ACES help with debugging, helping out — need better communication between ACES and SSTs. Make meetings more hands-on with data.
• We can provide data sets outside of CASDA to interested parties. 
• Once more data on CASDA, directly contact PIs of key science for EMU (and POSSUM) to get involved with reducing / processing particular fields? First field — low risk — is the LMC (contact Miroslav F., the PI). Also GAMA field (contact M. Huyhn, A. Hopkins).
• One issue - participation from outside CSIRO (i.e. SSTs). Can we schedule meetings at a better time internationally speaking? Is there some tech. soln. that can allow outside participants track goings-on and discussion at the meetings? Do we need to de-merge pol and continuum meetings to get POSSUM participation from e.g. Canada? Will need further consideration.

• WALLABY and POSSUM have tentatively organised a busy week for Sept. Can EMU get onboard?
• WALLABY has specific pipeline processing goals. EMU goals more generic — seeking community involvement to get hands dirty. 

CA - Community busy weeks — good for getting beginners' hands dirty at a basic level, but can sideline experienced users with needing to provide constant assistance, so not so good for work-shopping specific, advanced issues. Less of a problem these days most likely, since we already have 'pre-baked' data products that we can feed to people to move forward on more advanced topics.

CA - Need to define expectations early and prepare for busy week to have it be successful.

GH - discussion of busy week goals seems somewhat undirected. Need a roadmap of what remains to be done to be science-ready end-to-end, and a map of where people can usefully get involved. 

AH - so far, mainly been somewhat undirected investigations of specific datasets. This has been the model required to pick up on the many existing issues.

GH - agree that this is valuable and crucial, but we also need to chart a course, thereby naturally highlighting critical tasks, and de-emphasising less critical tasks. Who’s job is it to set down specific goals and waypoints towards science-ready data processing? AH, GH: This group...?

RN - sanity check on the early science model: ACES runs the processing, hands off data products to SSTs, SSTs provide assessment and feedback of data quality, at which point the two parties iterate through this procesdure. Is this correct?

AH - In practice, ACES doesn’t have the manpower to do everyone's data crunching for them. Processing drudge-work needs to be somewhat SST-driven, with ACES providing expert feedback. 

GH - need expert users that come in and improve on pipeline, demonstrating inadequacies, demanding improvements be added in. Need to focus on iterative assessment and improvement of individual datasets, with a clear focus on specific, bite-size goals that directly map onto specific requirements to get science-ready. 

• Go ahead and process 192 MHz LMC dataset. Known issues with MFS imaging, but a good place to forge ahead and work on issues. 
• Are we happy to upload 48 MHz LMC data to CASDA? AH - extended structure imaged quite poorly, but should talk to W. Raja, investigate more. 
• Give Miroslav an account, get him looking at e.g. flux comparisons, overall data quality, etc. 
• AH - happy for anyone to get involved in ACES, as long as they are happy to abide by the rules / policies.