GeminiFocus January 2018 - Page 28

Figure 1 .
Pie charts showing the ratings for the 2017B Phase I process ( top left ), 2017B Phase II process ( top right ), and 2017A observing semester ( bottom ).
Overall , the outcomes of this survey are diverse ; they also reveal three additional points :
1 . We lack clear descriptions of what PIs should expect from the Observatory , and vice versa , especially in the context of Queue observing . We are arranging new web pages that should help with these communication issues .
2 . PIs pointed out that some GMOS-S data observed in 2017A were difficult to reduce due to bias and cosmetic problems . The hardware issues that caused these problems are now resolved , and we continue to work with PIs on the complications introduced by these features in their data reduction process . Affected PIs , if they have not already done so , are encouraged to contact us .
3 . Many who took the survey thanked staff for their helpful support . We recommend that PIs continue to start with early communications with the Contact
Scientist of their program , and inform them of what is important for their project ’ s success .
Some PIs used the survey to send us specific complaints . This was very useful , since these few situations would have been missed otherwise . We , of course , recommend that PIs address their concerns to us as early as possible , but we appreciate any opportunity to discuss what happened and find more productive future strategies .
We look forward to hearing more from you through our future surveys , so we can better align our work with your research needs . Also , stay tuned , because the Science User Support Department will continue to address responses in future issues of GeminiFocus .
André-Nicolas Chené is an assistant astronomer in the Science User Support Group . He is located at Gemini North and can be contacted at : achene @ gemini . edu
26 GeminiFocus January 2018
Figure 1. Pie charts showing the ratings for the 2017B Phase I process (top left), 2017B Phase II process (top right), and 2017A observing semester (bottom). Overall, the outcomes of this survey are diverse; they also reveal three additional points: Scientist of their program, and inform them of what is important for their proj- ect’s success. 1. We lack clear descriptions of what PIs should expect from the Observatory, and vice versa, especially in the context of Queue observing. We are arranging new web pages that should help with these communication issues. Some PIs used the survey to send us specific complaints. This was very useful, since these few situations would have been missed oth- erwise. We, of course, recommend that PIs address their concerns to us as early as pos- sible, but we appreciate any opportunity to discuss what happened and find more pro- ductive future strategies. 2. PIs pointed out that some GMOS-S data observed in 2017A were difficult to re- duce due to bias and cosmetic prob- lems. The hardware issues that caused these problems are now resolved, and we continue to work with PIs on the complications introduced by these fea- tures in their data reduction process. Af- fected PIs, if they have not already done so, are encouraged to contact us. 3. Many who took the survey thanked staf bf"FV"VgV7W'BvR&V2ЦVBFB26FVRF7F'BvFV&ǒ6V6F2vFFR6F7@#`vV֖f7W0vRf'v&BFV&r&Rg&PF&VvW"gWGW&R7W'fW26vR6&WBЧFW"ƖvW"v&vFW"&W6V&6VVG267FGVVB&V6W6RFR66V6RW6W 7W'BFW'FVBv6FVRFFG&W70&W76W2gWGW&R77VW2bvV֖f7W2G,:626V:2767FB7G&ЦW"FR66V6RW6W"7W'Bw&WR2Ц6FVBBvV֖'FB6&R6F7FVBC6VTvV֖VGPV'#