Re: A minor update: Duccio Macchetto will try to figure out whatproprietary period is appropriate for both proposals.

From: Vitaliy Fadeyev (VAFadeyev@lbl.gov)
Date: Fri Apr 02 2004 - 09:42:41 PST

  • Next message: Saul Perlmutter: "Here is the photo-z/galaxy-type result from that practice coordinate --11 that we sent to Mobasher."

    Saul Perlmutter wrote:

    > (Does anybody have any particularly clever simple argument about why
    > it's now more appropriate to be the standard 1-year proprietary period
    > as opposed to the zero-proprietary-period we proposed?)

    Presumably we will take some NICMOS data, which are likely to need final
    references. In such a case roughly a year wait is necessary anyway.

    This actually reminded me that for our internal purposes we should
    check with the archive for a given candidate. The idea is to see
    if there is an initial reference from some other observation. GOODs
    had some NICMOS fields.

    vitaliy

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Apr 02 2004 - 09:43:06 PST