Addressing LSST Pub Board and SAC review comments on Ch 1 and 2

[drphilmarshall]

This PR will (eventually) close the following issues:

• [x] Sandrine Thomas' Pub Board review of Chapter 1, closes #637
• [x] Michael Strauss' Pub Board review of Chapters 1 and 2, closes #611
• [x] Jason Kalirai's SAC review of the Preface, closes #615
• [x] Jason Kalirai's SAC review of Chapter 1, closes #616

When I'm done, I'll assign Beth and Zeljko to sign off on these two chapters.

[drphilmarshall]

@michaelstrauss In Chapter 1 I decided to leave in all the "guidelines for contributors" material, partly to show how the WP was made but also to make the arxiv posting a faithful advert for this community project. You also asked, "can a metric be designed even if you don't speak MAF?" The answer to this is "yes" - Peter and Lynne have done a great job at interpreting various science teams explanations and providing initial MAF metrics to them. I addressed the rest of your comments as best as I could, leaving some flags for Zeljko and Beth (below).

@rhiannonlynne While addressing Michael's comment I found that your DDF white paper link is broken. So, I linked to the community thread instead (which contains the above link). Great if you could fix that or report to (or just edit) the community thread with a replacement. Thanks!

Zeljko, Beth: After addressing Michael's SAC comments on Chapters 1 and 2, I found the following items that I think you need to help out with or sign off on. Great if you can take a look and respond wither by reply here or by tex edit in the pjm-ch1+2-review-response branch. Thanks!

In the tex files introduction.tex and cadexp2.tex, search for the string @ivezic to find my comments, and the parts that need checking/editing or agreement. Looks like there's a question for Andy in there as well.

grep '@ivezic' introduction.tex cadexp2.tex

introduction.tex:% @ivezic: please check the following sentences, requested by the Pub Board reviewer. introduction.tex:% @ivezic can you please unpack the SOCS acronym and add a sentence about what else this team will do, please? You can refer forward to MAF which is introduced and described in the next section (\ref{sec:intro:evaluation}). introduction.tex:% @ivezic: "How will the Project Scientist act? Through the PST, or...?" Can you please suggest some extra detail here, or clean up and ignore? introduction.tex:% @ivezic: Please verify or edit the above parenthetical clause, inserted in response to the Pub Board reviewer. introduction.tex:% @ivezic, @bwillman: Neither the v2.0 nor v3.0 white papers are referred to in the Table, but they are clearly called for in the text. Can you please check these references and make sure you are OK with them? @connolly: should we update the Table to refer to these WP updates? introduction.tex:% @ivezic: How will all this activity by the SSC and SOCS and

cadexp2.tex:% @ivezic: Our SAC reviewer suggested including this dec range, and also that we say what the galactic latitude cut is. Can you check the former and add the latter, please? Thanks!

[drphilmarshall]

Jason suggested we include an executive summary. I looked back at the Science Book, and found that there we included a short paragraph summarizing the LSST and its motivation in the preface - so to match that I added a similar first paragraph to our preface (and I also unpacked the jargon). Then, since we'll need one for the arxiv posting anyway, I wrote a very short summary and placed it after the preface. Comments/edits welcome! I don't think we need a longer executive summary: the summary that really matters is the one that people read in the arxiv posting(s).

[ivezic]

I will probably take care of it today - or by EOB tomorrow at the latest.

[ivezic]

Just push-ed fixes and edits. All good to go, AFAIK.

[drphilmarshall]

Excellent - thanks very much, @ivezic! :-)