Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) All Hands Meeting 2012 … · 2015. 10. 20. · LSST All Hands Meeting 2012 Survey Results Document 13731 9/7/2012 2 The LSST All Hands Meeting

Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST)

All Hands Meeting 2012 Survey Results

Robert McKercher

Document 13731

September 7, 2012 .

LSST All Hands Meeting 2012 Survey Results Document 13731 9/7/2012

i

Change Record

Version Date Description Owner name

1 9/6/2012 Initial draft Robert McKercher

2 9/7/2012

Added comparisons to 2010 AHM survey results to question summaries, executive summary, and conclusion. Added an introduction describing the AHM and providing links to the website, agenda, and meeting presentations.

R. McKercher


ii

Table of Contents Change Record ............................................................................................................................................... i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 2

SURVEY RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 2

Question 1: Name ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Question 2: What LSST groups are you part of? ........................................................................................... 3

Question 3: Please rate these meeting practicalities, from 1 (awful) to 4 (great). ..................................... 3

Chart 2-1: LSST Groups Represented at AHM 2012 .................................................................................. 3

Chart 3-1: Meeting Practicalities Rated from Awful to Great .................................................................. 4

Chart 3-2: Comment Clusters for "Meeting Practicalities" ....................................................................... 4

Question 4: Please indicate your interest in having various aspects of the 2012 AHM repeated at future

meetings. ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

Chart 4-1: Interest in Aspects of AHM 2012 in Future Meetings.............................................................. 6

Representative Sampling of Comments from Each Comment Cluster: .................................................... 7

Chart 4-2: Comment Clusters for "Future AHM Aspects" ......................................................................... 7

Question 5: List the plenary sessions you found most helpful and why. .................................................... 8

Chart 5-1: Plenary Session Popularity ....................................................................................................... 9

Question 6: Which breakouts did you find most helpful and why? .......................................................... 10

Chart 6-1: Breakout Session Popularity .................................................................................................. 10

Chart 6-2: Breakout Sessions Comment Clusters ................................................................................... 11

Question 7: What do you think about the various elements of the agenda structure? Please rate each

element from Inadequate to Excessive. ..................................................................................................... 12

Chart 7-1: Opinions on Agenda Structure ............................................................................................... 13

Question 8: What time of year is most convenient for you to attend the meeting? ................................ 13

Chart 8-1: Best Time of Year for AHM .................................................................................................... 13

Question 9: Where should the next AHM be held? ................................................................................... 14

Chart 9-1: Location Preference for Next AHM ........................................................................................ 15

Chart 9-2: Comment Clusters for AHM Location Preference ................................................................. 15

Question 10: Please rate the following from Not Very to Extremely. ....................................................... 17


iii

Chart 10-1: Rate the Meeting ................................................................................................................. 17

Chart 10-2: Suggestions to Allow for More Unstructured Discussion at Future AHMs .......................... 18

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 20

Appendix: 2012 AHM Agenda .................................................................................................................... 21


1

The LSST All Hands Meeting 2012 Survey Results

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

267 participants registered for the 2012 LSST All Hands Meeting. 144 AHM attendees took the survey; not all survey participants completed every question. Some questions allowed respondents to choose more than one answer.

The meeting was attended by a good mix of the project team and Science Collaboration (SC) members. 70 respondents identified themselves as SC members. Aggregated, 102 respondents are involved in technical work of the project. Camera and Data Management (DM) were the most represented subsystems.

On the whole, survey participants reported a good experience. More than 85% described the meeting as “extremely” or “quite a bit” productive and enjoyable; 93% are “extremely” or “quite a bit” likely to attend the next AHM. Attendees continue to prefer holding the AHM in the summer months (with August the front-runner) because they present the fewest conflicts with the academic calendar. While most of the respondents gave favorable marks to the venue, and half voted to return for the next AHM, a number of respondents expressed the desire to rotate among LSST’s partner institutions such as University of Washington, SLAC, or Princeton. Also, a significant minority expressed concerns about the Ritz-Carlton’s cost and isolation. In general, respondents were satisfied with the meeting’s agenda.

Although respondents’ overall satisfaction with the meeting was consistent with the 2010 AHM survey (https://www.lsstcorp.org/sites/default/files/AHM_Survey_Report_Summary_Sept_24_2010.pdf), there were comparative declines in positive ratings for some areas, including approval of the food (14%) and choice of hotel (7%), whether the meeting was productive (4%) and enjoyable (12%), whether respondents are likely to attend a future AHM (4%), and whether the agenda was properly balanced among plenary sessions (11%), breakouts, and downtime for discussion (6%).

The most significant area for improvement identified in the survey was the fullness of the agenda. Many survey participants described their informal, impromptu interactions as the most productive of the meeting, but 28% of respondents considered downtime for discussion to be “inadequate.” The related comments expressed the desire for a less crowded schedule with fewer concurrent breakouts and more opportunities for informal interaction. Suggestions for accomplishing this included

Scheduling more downtime into the agenda,

Focusing on cross-domain sessions,

Limiting prepared talks at breakouts in favor of discussion,

Having longer breaks in between sessions,

Setting aside blocks of unscheduled time for ad hoc meetings, and

Holding more frequent, targeted workshops in addition to AHM.

https://www.lsstcorp.org/sites/default/files/AHM_Survey_Report_Summary_Sept_24_2010.pdf


2

The LSST All Hands Meeting 2012 Survey Results

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) is the top-ranked large-scale ground-based project for the next decade, as recommended by the National Research Council’s Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey (Astro2010). By digitally imaging the sky in six bands for a decade, the LSST will produce a petabyte-scale, non-proprietary database enabling new paradigms of knowledge discovery and sustainable partnerships for transformative Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. LSST will address some of the most pressing questions in astronomy and physics while driving advances in big-data science and computing. In addition to technical staff and management personnel, the collaboration building LSST involves more than 400 astronomers from more than 70 institutions in the United States who contribute to the project without compensation. Not just “another telescope,” LSST is a facility that will transform the deep sky into a new understanding of the Universe available to all.

The LSST project held its fifth All Hands Meeting August 13-17, 2012 at the Ritz-Carlton Dove Mountain approximately 30 miles north of Tucson, Arizona.

All Hands Meetings (AHM) are week-long conferences designed to bring together members of the Science Collaborations, advisory boards, and engineers and scientists building the telescope to share ideas and maximize the impact of LSST. For more information about the 2012 AHM and to view the meeting’s plenary and breakout presentations, visit https://www.lsstcorp.org/ahm2012/. The meeting’s agenda has also been included in this report as an appendix.

SURVEY RESULTS

Question 1: Name

Summary: Names have not been published in order to maintain anonymity of responses.

120 answered the question 24 skipped the question

https://www.lsstcorp.org/ahm2012/


3

Question 2: What LSST groups are you part of?

Summary: By far, the Science Collaboration Teams represented the largest group, accounting for nearly half of the responses. However, when added together, the technical parts of the project such as Camera, Data Management, simulations, EPO, or Telescope and Site represented almost two thirds of the respondents. (Some project team members are also members of science collaborations.) Free form answers and clarifications of the “Not Specified or None” responses have been incorporated into chart 2-1.


Question 3: Please rate these meeting practicalities, from 1 (awful) to 4 (great).

Summary: One respondent’s comment, “Very nice venue, with great facilities, setting & service (except for internet access),” nicely characterizes the consensus of responses regarding the meeting’s practicalities.

On the whole, survey participants reported positive experiences. As anticipated, “Internet Access” was a notable exception. A security authentication issue on the part of the hotel’s internet service provider caused the access problems early in the week. Once the problem was identified and resolved, internet access was good.

Overall satisfaction was consistent with 2010 AHM survey results. However, 2012 respondents were less

Chart 2-1: LSST Groups Represented at AHM 2012


4

enthusiastic about the food and venue. In 2010, more than 60% rated Food and Choice of Hotel as “Great.” In 2012, their “Great” ratings were 45.9% and 53%, respectively. The comment cluster expressing a desire for more robust breakfast and snack choices may be part of the reason for the decline in appreciation for the food. As in 2010, some respondents continue to be concerned that the hotel is too posh and/or isolated.

144 answered the question; 0 skipped the question. Not all respondents rated each element. Representative Sampling of Comments from Each Comment Cluster:

“Internet Issues”

The main reason I did not give this the bottom mark is that after calling the AT&T help line and getting a pass on the authorization step, my internet was actually quite snappy. It's probably worth asking the internet provider if they'd be willing to just do a one-time authentication for all participants so the authentication server doesn't fall over next time.

The internet access obviously had a lot of problems, although it was OK while it was working.

Chart 3-1: Meeting Practicalities Rated from Awful to Great

Chart 3-2: Comment Clusters for "Meeting Practicalities"


5

The internet was impossible to use for the first couple of days, but it improved after Wednesday.

Internet was crummy the first couple days, but once they got the problem identified, it was great.

“Too Isolated”

Expensive food on site (and too far to go to get cheaper) for meals that were not provided.

It's not a great experience for the locals due to commuting, etc.

It would be nice to have the meeting at a less hot place and easier access from airport to hotel would be great too.

I didn't like the isolated location. Having the meeting in civilization doesn't discourage interaction with colleagues, it gives us a choice to meet somewhere other than the hotel.

“Breakfast/Snacks Too Sugary”

Breakfast and snacks were not diverse enough and nearly exclusively sugary. There was way too much fruit at breakfast and breaks. The breakfast breads were all sweet except for the plain croissants. And the only non-sweet snack was the popcorn on Monday afternoon. It all tasted great, but I'm diabetic, so it made eating a bit rough.

Needed protein at breakfast - even yogurt would have helped.

“Too Expensive”

The hotel is a poor choice in my opinion because it gives the “appearance” of luxury. This could easily be made to make us look bad in the press regardless of what a good deal we are getting. Appearances matter, especially now that we are seeking construction funding.

Hotel was an expensive choice in an era of austerity.

Seems a bit pricey.

“Information Prior to Arrival”

It would have been nice if a more detailed agenda was available a longer time before the meeting.

Would have liked to know before arrival that my registration fee would be waived.

“Positive Comments” Cluster:

Very nice venue, with great facilities, setting & service (except for internet access).

Excellent staff support, particularly at short notice in my case.

Having the agenda online and formatted for mobile devices was great for keeping up to date with last minute changes.

The LSST advance info was very good.

Suggestions from Comments:

It would be great to be able to pay ahead of time with a credit card.


6

Need telecon lines in breakout rooms and more GoToMeeting access with projectors. Breakout rooms need tables to sit around instead of theater seating.

Would have been useful to organize transportation to/from hotel and (at least) TUS (and perhaps increase the registration costs accordingly).

First and Last name on the name tags need to be in giant font on the same line. Affiliation should also be big.

Generally, I'd prefer a banquet without any entertainment – mealtime is much better spent talking with others.

Need more caffeinated (sugar-free) carbonated beverages, particularly at afternoon breaks.

Please make all talks available online as pdf's as soon as they happen.

Question 4: Please indicate your interest in having various aspects of the 2012 AHM repeated at future meetings.

Summary: The meeting features in which survey participants expressed the most interest for the future were breakout sessions introductions, Science Collaboration updates, and pop-up meeting rooms. The comments regarding these features included requests for more pop-up meeting space, more organized breakout introductions with clearer information, and a desire for Science Collaboration updates that dealt more with needs, current challenges, and questions. The banquet and the open session with the Science Council and Science Collaboration Chairs also received high scores, although some comments singled out the banquet entertainment as unnecessary and “inappropriate.” Less than a third of the respondents voted for continuing the star party, soccer, and the mirror lab tour; however, the star party and soccer each received an accolade in the comments section.


Chart 4-1: Interest in Aspects of AHM 2012 in Future Meetings


7

Representative Sampling of Comments from Each Comment Cluster:

“Banquet Entertainment Unnecessary/Inappropriate”

The idea of entertainment during the banquet – the heart is in the right place, but it just doesn't work so well. By 9 pm we're tired – I don't want to hear a talk or uncomfortable improv. Having a cocktail hour (whether hosted or for pay) with heavy snacks could be a way for participants to informally connect in a more casual way.

The entertainment provided for the banquet was breathtakingly inappropriate. Whoever thought that jokes about: 1. female graduate students and their project manager, 2. doctors of female anatomy, 3. accents of foreigners really needs to join the 21st century. I could not believe what I was seeing and hearing.

No outside groups brought for after-dinner entertainment. It's unnecessary and feels like an intrusion. And this year wasn't very good. Instead perhaps an LSST talent show or karaoke.

“Positive Comments”

Breakout introductions and brief science collaboration updates during plenary were great – I'll want to use that in my next conference.

As a science collab co-chair, I think the meeting with the Science Council was very informative – indeed, I would recommend starting to have quarterly phone-cons between the science council and the collab chairs, and reserving a good afternoon or so for a joint meeting at future AHM meetings, particularly if the next AHM is past the final design review, when science topics and collabs will start to represent more important near term concerns for the overall project's success.

The star party was a great idea... should be a part of future meetings.

Most useful of all: hallway conversations. The resort was a good setting for that.

… (my vote for) soccer is so Jeff finally gets a win - great idea for personalizing the meeting.

Chart 4-2: Comment Clusters for "Future AHM Aspects"


8

“More Focused Science Collaboration Updates”

Science Collaboration updates must be focused – what has been accomplished, what is planned specifically. Brief!

Part of the problem with the Sci Collab updates, is that they felt like afterthoughts for many of the presenters - little information on the actual needs/current challenges/and current questions of the Sci Collabs but instead information providing a gloss of science cases that are in the science book. The former would be interesting and helpful, but the latter is not.

“More Free Time”

Free time is very important for me; the AHM is an opportunity to discuss with people I otherwise seldom see.

...maybe more free time for hiking in the morning when it’s cooler.

“Alternative Activities”

Bridge session or two.

At a future meeting, I would be willing to organize morning hikes/runs at 6:30 am, especially on the first and last days, when there is no soccer.

“Clearer Breakout Intros”

Better breakout intros, with clear locations and agendas. Breakouts should not be open ended, but have specific results and purpose.

“More Pop-Up Rooms”

More room for pop-up meetings. I had 3-4 sidebar meetings and we only had access to the room once.

Question 5: List the plenary sessions you found most helpful and why.

Summary: Many responses to this question referred to a category of plenary presentation, such as science collaboration updates or project overview and status. However, there were several specific talks singled out by survey participants. The most popular of these were Transformative EPO, Transient Streaks, Astrometric Performance, and Technical Margin. Each mention of a plenary talk has been recorded on the chart below; if a talk does not appear on the chart, it received zero mentions. Some of the mentions were simple acknowledgements such as “EPO.”


Notable responses:

(Science Collaboration Updates) provided an update on progress in these areas and a connection with the science aspects of the project.

I learned something and got an idea of what was happening across all the LSST groups.


9

(Project Overview and Status talks) were useful to see how aspects of the project are directed and are making progress. I wouldn't normally have access to this information.

The Project-led plenaries were probably the most helpful, as they appeared well-coordinated. The science collaboration updates were a bit more hit-and-miss.

Plenary session on Monday was helpful to give an overview of the week ahead.

(Technical Overview – V. Krabbendam) gave me a much better sense of the overall project.

Transformative LSST EPO (Prather) – very important aspect of the project.

Transformative LSST EPO: I think this is a major part of our job in the sciences.

Education – Ed Prather – best talk I've heard in a while and generated much discussion.

Technical margin and Astrometric performance to understand the capabilities and performance of the LSST in more quantifiable terms.

The DESC description because as a newcomer I was confused about the structure compared to (other) science collaborations.

Transient Streaks: given that Orbital and Natural debris will play some role on LSST data; it was good to get a read on what the issues are to date.

Transient Streaks: important but frequently overlooked aspect.

Preparing for construction: Gave me a greater sense of urgency on things.

None were particularly helpful – they were more targeted to the science team and not engineers on the project.

Chart 5-1: Plenary Session Popularity


10

Was there one on the camera? Should have been one on the camera... I heard lots of mumblings about the camera.

Question 6: Which breakouts did you find most helpful and why?

Summary: As with Question 5, many of the responses acknowledged a category of breakout; however, a significant number of sessions were mentioned by name. Each breakout receiving two or more mentions has been recorded on the chart below. Twenty sessions received one mention; they have been folded into the total of the category to which they belong (e.g. Supernovae and Science Collaborations). Most of the mentions were simple acknowledgements such as “Photometric Calibration.”


Notable Responses:

The systems engineering sessions were useful for understanding the priorities of the project.

Breakout 3.2 - Project Risks (important and interesting in terms of how the project is

Chart 6-1: Breakout Session Popularity


11

managed)

Performance audit gives a good way to see what the project cares about from a science standpoint.

I followed most of the DM breakouts, and it was a great opportunity to meet people and come back with a refined task list.

I found the sessions organized by the DM team incredibly informative – it was very helpful to get a better sense of the algorithms the team is planning to use to reduce the images, and how we might be able to start using the DM stack ourselves as end-users to build familiarity with the package in the pre-LSST era. If nothing else, it was also great to see who the people working on these issues are: aside from Mario (Juric) and Robert Lupton, I didn't previously know the other folks working on the DM team, so starting to put names with faces and tasks was very helpful.

DM: very helpful to see how to get involved with building software, and to see what the DM group schedule and plans are.

Data Management (almost hands on).

I also thought it was useful to have the tutorials on accessing and using DM software and simulations.

The tutorials about how to download, install, and use the image tools and simulations were useful.

Citizen Scientists meeting was useful to see how EPO is going to engage the public to help with LSST data.

Deep Drilling was good to understand the estimates and limitations on the number of fields and the locations for each group.

Chart 6-2: Breakout Sessions Comment Clusters


12


“Preference for Cross Domain Sessions”

Ones that either brought disparate groups within the project together in person (e.g. DM and Camera), or ones that updated the science collabs about the project.

Breakouts that mixed the science collaboration groups and the project groups made it clear what the challenges were and what the availability of tools, especially simulation, would be for the next year.

For a grunt in the trenches, the breakouts that were most useful were the ones where our (normally dispersed) group discussed details and the ones where we discussed interfaces with related groups.

“Better Organization and Focus”

Some of them would benefit from more organization and focus.

Specialized topics were very useful compared to broad overview topics, as the smaller focus allowed specific discussion and progress.

“Fewer Prepared Talks”

Those that were 50/50 talks and lively discussion (e.g., among those I attended, Photometric calibration, Stellar Classification, Risk management). Several sessions were too packed with scheduled talks and little time for discussion.

Observatory states - the core systems engineering team was able to make this a good working session even with a wide attendance. Possibly, one contributor was the lack of viewgraphs. That forced the breakout into a discussion rather than a lecture.

“Too Many Breakouts” Comment Cluster:

Too many. That's bad, not good. For me (and many other camera team members), this was a camera workshop. This prevented me from being able to attend the science breakouts that interested me.

Question 7: What do you think about the various elements of the agenda structure? Please rate each element from Inadequate to Excessive.

Summary: The 2012 AHM had a single plenary session each day and more time for breakout sessions, sometimes as many five running concurrently. The consensus among respondents was that the balance between plenary sessions, breakouts, and downtime for discussion was “Just Right.” None of the respondents provided additional comments for this question; however, compared to 2010’s survey results, the “excessive” rating for Plenary Sessions increased by 11% and the “inadequate” rating for Downtime for Discussion increased by 6%. Together, they qualify as a significant area for improvement.

139 answered the question; 5 skipped the question.


13

Chart 7-1: Opinions on Agenda Structure

Question 8: What time of year is most convenient for you to attend the meeting?

Summary: The 2012 AHM was scheduled for August in order to take place after vacations but before the beginning of the academic year. As in 2010, survey respondents selected the summer months as the best time of year for the next AHM, with nearly 60% of preferring August. Notably, support for December, January, and February increased slightly compared to 2010’s survey.


Chart 8-1: Best Time of Year for AHM


14

Notable Responses:

Not Arizona in August.

It depends on where we decide to hold the next meeting.

Please avoid the winter.

December & January are expensive to travel.

(Avoid) mid-November through the end of the year (annual regularly scheduled events, then holidays).

It all depends on… how far in advance the days are booked (lead time was good for this meeting).

The academic calendar matters for a lot of us. Please pick times when classes are not in session.

Mid- August is a good time to have this meeting. During the school year will be tough for many people. July is also a possibility, but not as attractive.

Most UC's are on the quarter system which goes from mid-September through mid-June with only a week between quarters, so most other months are difficult for us.

It’s difficult to attend week long meetings during the academic year, so summer is best. And August is best of the summer months.

August is not the best, especially for people coming from abroad. Tickets are more expensive, and some people are still on vacation. Several people from the French group did not come for budget or family reasons, and we missed them for some discussions.

Question 9: Where should the next AHM be held?

Summary: Just under half (49.6%) of respondents voted for a return to the Ritz-Carlton Dove Mountain for the next AHM. This is an increase of 17% compared to 2010’s survey results despite the fact that in Question 3 respondents rated the choice of hotel less highly than in 2010. The Ritz’s isolation was the reason most often cited by both supporters and detractors. Ritz supporters felt the hotel’s isolation reduced distractions and encouraged constructive conversation. Detractors felt that the resort was too far from the airport or dining alternatives. Some local project team members expressed concern over their daily commute time to the meeting. Others felt the Ritz was too expensive, unnecessarily posh, and wasteful.

Of the alternative choices offered, SLAC received the most mentions (20.4%). A number of respondents expressed the desire to rotate among LSST’s partner institutions with University of Washington receiving three write-in votes.



15

Chart 9-1: Location Preference for Next AHM

Suggested Other Locations:

Aspen

A cruise ship!

Fermilab

IPAC

Marriott Courtyard

NOAO

Princeton

Santa Fe

Seattle (x3)

Sun Valley

Ventana Canyon Resort

Chart 9-2: Comment Clusters for AHM Location Preference


16


“Prefer Isolated Location”

One of the benefits of holding the AHM at a place like the Ritz Carlton is that most attendees are away from their daily routine, thus not distracted by other events. I am not opposed to holding the AHM in an area affiliated with our partners (e.g. SLAC or NCSA), but when we hold the meeting in these facilities proper, a large segment of the project is distracted with their daily routines and not fully focused on the meeting objective.

The best aspect about Dove Mountain was that it was far enough away that no one ran off to other meetings or commitments (plus people committed to being at the meeting for a significant time).

The Ritz worked well. It could be someplace else, but an important aspect was being focused/confined in a single location to allow lots of informal interactions.

I like that Dove Mountain is isolated – I had my most productive conversations at or after dinner.

“Somewhere More Convenient”

While I loved the Ritz-Carlton, it was very inconvenient for international participants to get there from the airport and I would prefer it to be held near a major transport hub. I don't necessarily think it is a good idea for participants to be congregated in a somewhat inaccessible location with limited food options unless it provides an environment (like Aspen) for a lot of free discussion. Given how full the daily programming was, there wasn't that much point in having everyone together in the same hotel, as there was not much time for free discussion/collaboration.

Dove Mountain is fine. The only strong negative is that it is a schlep to get to from Tucson Airport (and the airport is not well-connected to other parts of the country).

…>100 USD for round-trip ground transport from the airport is a bit steep.

R-C is actually not convenient for Tucsonans we have to commute of order 2 hours per day, or look like we are squandering funds by staying in a home-town resort hotel.

“Partner Locations”

Make a rotation among participating institutions.

As good as the RC was I would have like the opportunity to visit other institutions, especially given how far I traveled.

“Ritz too Expensive/wasteful”

Ritz-Carlton was nice, of course, but far exceeded the per diem for room and food, with no practical outside options for food.

No opinion, other than the cost of the Ritz.

I have some qualms about staying at a hotel in the desert that has a water fountain and leaves TVs on in empty rooms.


17

Dove Mountain is an exercise in gross excess. Why is the thermostat set to 65° in Tucson, in the summer? Where does the water come from?

“Positive Comments” Cluster:

Aside from the internet, RC DM has been fantastic. The overall organization of the last two AHMs has also been fantastic. I have no idea how they provided that food and service for that price. I would be satisfied paying more. A quite good deal when meals are considered. I like that breakfast, lunch, and coffee snacks are together instead of each-on-her-own... greatly facilitates for informal discussion.

I don't know if a more ideal location for an AHM exists.

Question 10: Please rate the following from Not Very to Extremely.

Summary: More than 85% of respondents found the meeting “Quite a bit” or “Extremely” productive and enjoyable; 93% are “Quite a bit” or “Extremely” likely to attend the next AHM.

During the final plenary session on Friday morning, the project opened the floor to discussion of issues, concerns, and suggestions. Many felt that the meeting schedule was too full, which created conflicts between breakouts and discouraged informal interaction.

This concern seems to be reinforced by an overall decrease in “Extremely” or “Quite a Bit” ratings compared to 2010’s survey results. Those ratings declined 4% each for meeting productivity and likelihood of future AHM attendance; the meeting’s enjoyable rating fell 12%. Combined with increased dissatisfaction with the amount of available downtime for discussion as captured in Question 7, this issue clearly must be addressed in planning for the next AHM.

In response to concerns about the lack of opportunities for informal interaction, this survey solicited suggestions for facilitating more unstructured discussion between groups at future meetings. Suggestions were captured in the comments section of this question. Respondents suggested more scheduled downtime and the adoption of non-traditional sessions such as “unconference” sessions, at

Chart 10-1: Rate the Meeting


18

least for part of the meeting. Others suggested that the project hold more frequent, smaller meetings and workshops to alleviate the pressure to cover everything at AHM.


Chart 10-2: Suggestions to Allow for More Unstructured Discussion at Future AHMs


“More Scheduled Downtime”

If we want unstructured discussions then we have to schedule open time into the agenda.

I think that it would be good to schedule the time from 5:30 to 6:30 as something like "informal interaction time" and then "dinner" at 7:00, rather than listing "dinner" at 5:30. It might prompt people to use the 5:30 to 6:30 slot to interact at the pool, on a hike, on the patio, etc., rather than retreating to their rooms or heading to dinner much too early...

Free time in between sessions for meetings to continue instead of going straight into another session.


19

What about having free sections in the program where participants can do whatever they like?

…longer breaks, more 'birth control' for the breakout schedule.

More gaps in schedule, don't schedule any activities over meals.

Have a longer lunch break, perhaps up to 2.5 hours.

“Non-traditional Breakouts”

Blank sessions for people to sign up for impromptu discussions: otherwise known as an "unconference."

Designate specific timeslots during the day for semi-impromptu breakouts (overruns, meetings scheduled during the week).

Panel sessions: science interviewing project members; project interviewing science collab members.

It might be useful to have sessions where a topic is suggested but nothing more.

The breakouts could have electronic sign-up sheets completed in advance of the meeting. Then, the person charged with running the breakout could organize a discussion to match the people in the room. For instance, if a DM session on PSFs is attended by a bunch of LSS/Galaxy WG members, there could be discussions tailored towards the impact of PSF measurement on the scientific results of shear studies. To succeed, this would require the chairs of each breakout session to spend some effort organizing their time prior to the meeting and reaching out to those who signed up.

I think having breakout sessions that specifically don't have speakers presenting their work is a good idea. A small discussion list with a good moderator would be very helpful. …(some breakouts) seemed to devolve into seminars.

“More Team Meetings”

We should look at whether it is possible to have specialized meetings focused on specific issues so that the AHM can have genuine cross-group appeal. I heard, for example, that there were too many breakouts on ImSim that competed with other breakouts. If several breakouts are needed on a single topic, then maybe that calls for a special, smaller meeting devoted to that specific topic.

It would help if DM met separately once a year.

Focus either on engineering for project people, or science discussions. It's hard to do both in the same meeting. This time, there was mostly an emphasis on science so many support staff who attended were not well utilized.

A shorter science-based meeting (maybe tacked on a AAS meeting) and a separate more technical AHM meeting would fit my needs better. I would not be stretched as thin.

More frequent cross-cutting meetings.

“Fewer Concurrent Breakouts”

Fewer breakouts. Fewer plenaries.


20

…we just need to rein in the project members so that we don't overschedule ourselves again!

“Other Social Events”

I would recommend a mini poster night. Allow the presenters 2 minutes each to brief their poster. Have this with beer/wine and I think you'll find that people will stay and interact.

I think you could add social events like additional receptions – on the nights other than the banquets. How about wine and cheese, or wine tastings (BABAR used to do that at every collaboration meeting).

“Themed Sessions”

…specify at least some breakouts in terms of specific issues and focused objectives known to be important and current.

Conclusion

In general, survey participants reported a good AHM 2012 experience. They approved of the time of year, the agenda structure, and the venue and its amenities. Although overall satisfaction was consistent with 2010 AHM survey results, the comparative declines in positive ratings for some areas warrants discussion for improvements to the next AHM.

Food and Venue

Compared to 2010, the “Great” ratings for Food and Choice of Hotel declined 14% and 7%, respectively. Comments expressing a desire for more robust breakfast and snack choices may partly explain the decline in appreciation for the food. As in 2010, some respondents continue to be concerned that the hotel is too expensive, too posh, or too remote. Complicating the issue, however, is the fact that despite these declines, votes to return to the Ritz-Carlton Dove Mountain for the next AHM increased by 17%. Based on this contradiction, the project may find it worthwhile to explore other options for AHM location, but it does not seem to be a pressing issue.

Productive and Enjoyable

Compared to 2010, the “Extremely” and “Quite a Bit” ratings for meeting productivity and likelihood of future AHM attendance declined by 4% each. The meeting’s enjoyable rating fell 12%. Combined with an 11% increase in the “excessive” rating for the plenary sessions and a 6% increase in the “inadequate” rating for Downtime for Discussion, adjustments to the agenda structure should be considered for the next AHM.

Fullness of Schedule

The most significant area for improvement identified in the survey comments was the fullness of the agenda. Many survey participants described their informal, impromptu interactions as the most productive of the meeting; however, the fullness of the schedule prevented them from having as many of those interactions as they would have liked.


21

Recommendations

Based on the survey results and respondents comments, future AHMs should have more scheduled downtime and experiment with non-traditional breakout sessions to facilitate informal interactions. To help alleviate some of the schedule pressure, the project should explore holding more frequent, targeted project workshops in addition to the AHM.


21

Appendix: 2012 AHM

Agenda

5-page, detailed day-by-day agenda http://www.lsstcorp.org/ahm2012/Agenda/Agenda.pdf Mobile-formatted agenda https://www.lsstcorp.org/ahm2012/sites/default/files/ahm-schedule/#f-1200

http://www.lsstcorp.org/ahm2012/Agenda/Agenda.pdf




https://www.lsstcorp.org/ahm2012/sites/default/files/ahm-schedule/#f-1200







22


23


24


25

Documents

Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) All Hands Meeting 2012 … · 2015. 10. 20. · LSST All Hands Meeting 2012 Survey Results Document 13731 9/7/2012 2 The LSST All Hands Meeting