Difference between revisions of "NSAC subcommittee feedback"

From CebafUsersGroup
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 44: Line 44:
 
Please send your comments, opinions, suggestions on this exercise and how we as a Users Group should react to it to any members of the UGBoD.  
 
Please send your comments, opinions, suggestions on this exercise and how we as a Users Group should react to it to any members of the UGBoD.  
 
- Sebastian (email: skuhn@odu.edu)
 
- Sebastian (email: skuhn@odu.edu)
 +
 +
Also see our petition to the NSAC subcommittee at [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dHRvLUdVX2RLczJIakZ5bmY2SDZ4ZkE6MA#gid=0]

Latest revision as of 16:32, 9 October 2012

The first meeting of a new NSAC subcommittee was held on May 15, 2012. The subcommittee has been charged to provide advice on implementing the priorities and recommendations of the 2007 NSAC Long Range Plan in light of projected budgetary constraints and for guidance on developing a plan to implement the highest priority science in the context of likely available funding and world-wide capabilities. The subcommittee used its first meeting to hear presentations from DOE and NSF representatives and to begin setting the agenda for the next meeting, which will mostly focus on presentations from the four major areas of science that were covered in the 2007 Long Range Plan. Also some significant time in the first meeting was devoted to the issue of community input to the process.

While the subcommittee is not carrying out a new LRP, it recognizes that the impact of the present effort will be significant for the field. We welcome input from individual members of the community and have a link on the subcommittee website

     http://cyclotron.tamu.edu/nsac-subcommittee-2012

for DNP members to post comments to the subcommittee. For those interested in using this mechanism, comments will need to be submitted with your name and email address so that they can be approved by a moderator before they are posted. For those of you who are involved in a program at a major US user facility, it may be more appropriate to work through your User Group to provide input to the subcommittee. Other groups may want to 'self organize' in order to have their collective voice heard. Since this is not a new LRP exercise, extended White Papers detailing all of the potential avenues of research will likely not be very useful to the subcommittee. More concise summaries putting the importance of the science in clear language would be particularly valuable. In addition, the DNP Executive Committee has agreed to set aside time at the fall DNP meeting in Newport Beach (likely in conjunction with the Town Meeting) for community input to the process. More information on the Fall Meeting plans will be forthcoming.

Bob Tribble NSAC Subcommittee Chair


Please send your comments, opinions, suggestions on this exercise and how we as a Users Group should react to it to any members of the UGBoD. - Sebastian (email: skuhn@odu.edu)

Also see our petition to the NSAC subcommittee at [1]