Observer status

[JBodera]

This was raised by A. Gotz (ESRF) during the conference call of 12/11/2018.

How should we deal with observers? Who are our observers? What are they entitled to? How do we engage with them?

Initial thoughts are:

1. They are invited to annual face to face meetings, but at their expense
2. We could ask the ones that issued letters of support for PaNOSC if they want to be observers
3. How many observers from the same institute? One would be good (less coordination) but one per work package focusing on technical things could be interesting too
4. It could be easy to send them a report regularly (e.g. every couple of months) to keep them engaged and up to date with project progress

If you have any ideas/suggestions please add them in this thread. Thanks,

[RDimper]

My feeling is that we should aim for only one "official" observer per legal entity. This observer should be nominated by the Management of the entity to make it an official mandate. All PaNs should be invited to nominate an Observer. We should establish a specific mailing list for this group. Their role would be foremost to be the official contact person for their lab if we wish to have feedback on specific issues. Observers can participate in the face-to-face meetings on their own expense. They can delegate their role temporarily (for instance for a meeting) to another person.

[fangohr]

I'd agree to limit the numbers by default as suggested by @RDimper, at least per legal entity to keep the group size manageable: for a board providing input and feedback, it is not necessarily getting more effective because there are more people involved. If we like expert input and collaboration beyond one observer per legal entity, we could always invite additional people on such occasions.

[thomasholmrod]

@RDimper would it possible to get list of those who have been invited so far?

[thomasholmrod]

Information from @RDimper

So far we have the following nominations as Observers in PaNOSC: • DLS - Mark Heron • ALBA - Vincente Rey • SOLARIS - Miroslaw Burzynski • SOLEIL - Brigitte Gagey • HZB - Ants Finke • MAX-IV - Darren Spruce • PSI - Gerd Mann and we are still missing replies for: DESY, LLB, FRM-II, ISIS, HZDR

[thomasholmrod]

So having a look at the list of Supporting Letters @RDimper has covered the European photon and neutron sources. Besides those we have the following legal entities:

• JPARC, SNS, CSCS, CINECA, JSC. I suggest @andygotz as coordinator invite them using @RDimper's letter of template. I have already told CSCS and JSC about the dates and that they will receive an invitation. I would put HZDR and IBS into the same pool.

What should we do about the user associations ENSA and ESUO? I guess we want to reach out to the users, so I suggest @andygotz also invite them using the same template.

The remaining ones are Paul Erhart from Chalmers University of Technology, Erik Knudsen, Technical University of Denmark, and the Hercules Europesn School. I can invite them as they are mostly interested in WP5 and 8.