Eric's Transcription of Q&A/Discussion

Arimoto-san's Talk

Fujiyoshi: What happens if TMT does not come to Hawaii?
Arimoto: Japan has the right to refuse the agreement (on the TMT construction) if TMT does not come to Hawaii. But Subaru can still survive even if TMT does not come to Hawaii.

Fujiyoshi: But the budget...
Arimoto: we would need the international cooperation. Subaru's wide-field capability in the Northern Hemisphere is still very valuable and would be attractive to partners.

Ohashi: If TMT decides to go somewhere else, what then?
Arimoto: it's almost the same question. If TMT comes to Hawaii we will use the money to operate the telescopes jointly. If TMT goes somewhere else we can't really operate it remotely. The government will have to think--do we really want to lose Subaru?

Kackley: In JAC when we went through this same process there was a complete financial review of all the facilities of the telescopes by the UK and their situation. Has anything like that happened for Japanese telescopes?
Arimoto: We and they (government) suggest to specialize on the prime focus instruments and expand to international cooperation. If we become an international facility, then--we can say "if you cut our budget, what will happen to our international partners?". And this is a very strong argument.

Jovanovic: Of the countries that you have talked to so far, have you had any serious offer, and what kind of contribution are they talking about? Can you say any kind of amount that has been discussed?
Arimoto: With Canada we have just started. Iwata: with Australia they are thinking about a few million. With Canada their scope would be a bit later, so no exact amount has been discussed. Arimoto: the time scale for Australia would be 2017

Kim: If TMT decides not to come to Hawaii, and the Japanese government does not invest in TMT, would they want to keep Subaru as a general-purpose telescope or continue to move toward a survey orientation?
Arimoto: If TMT doesn't come to Hawaii, then it is not the government, not NAOJ, but the Japanese community that decides which way Subaru will go. And hopefully NAOJ will listen to them. We need TMT and Subaru. If TMT doesn't come to Hawaii then we have to think how to keep Subaru operating. I think we can keep some fundamental budget to keep it operating to 2033, but beyond that we need UH to negotiate the lease situation.

Kim: Is the interest from east asian countries and Australia due to the general purpose nature of Subaru or because of the survey orientation?
Arimoto: Although there are SSP programs, there will still be opportunities in the future for individual science programs. And access to the survey programs is also possible and contributes to the science.
Imanishi: Keck had the same budget issue a few years ago, and when a new partner joined they negotiated a reduction in share of the Caltech and UH time. Have you considered such a similar negotiation?
Arimoto: Now we give UH 52 nights, and this can be negotiated. If UH becomes a "partner" then they might get access to survey data, and this might be part of the negotiation.
Imanishi: How do you plan to consider the time allocation? For EAO observations, the China program was ranked very low last semester.
Arimoto: We would like to make a fair competition. So the nights allocated to EAO would be considered based on scientific merit.

Iwata-san's Talk

Jovanovic: Do you see Subaru's board made up of NAOJ representatives and partners, or do you see it as made up of independent scientists that would not be influenced so strongly by the NAOJ/government?
Iwata: At this time we are thinking that Japan will still be the major investor in Subaru, and so the majority of the board will be made up of NAOJ representatives, and the board and NAOJ will not be profoundly in different positions.

Jovanovic: will the number of seats on the board be allocated linearly in proportion the investment?
Iwata: yes, it should be proportional to the contributions

Jovanovic: would the funds for workers be paid directly from their institute directly or via RCUH?
Iwata: (explains the possibilities of direct or via RCUH)

Hayashi S: what is the advantage of direct funding?
Iwata: there is no good point for us
Ohashi: from the partner point of view, the in-kind contribution is an advantage
Hayashi S: if they send their own staff, that is the case
Jovanovic: the tricky part about that is the visa situation. RCUH won't sponsor them if they are not paying them
Ohashi: EAO could possibly do that

Jovanovic: the idea that the TAC should allocate nights to partners on scientific merit (not proportional to contribution) is fantastic. In the worst case, that means partners may get more nights than Japanese observers. Will TAC consist of only Japanese observers?
Iwata: the single TAC will consist of Japanese observers + partners. There are many questions to be determined.
Jovanovic: I think that basing it on merit will encourage collaboration

Jeschke: if we have in-kind contributions in the form of workers paid directly by the partners, what kinds of problems could this potentially cause for Subaru?
Ohashi: this is already done for SMA and ALMA, and it works
Jovanovic: The onsite manager manages the employee and they sign a contract agreeing to abide by the rules
Jeschke: but how do we handle evaluations, for example?
Jovanovic: the other partners do the evaluations for those people, based on feedback from the managers and director
Jeschke: but what if the evaluation is substandard and the partner wants to keep that person?
Helminiak: there should basically be a clause in the contract about how that should be handled
Ohashi: there should be some kind of screening process
Jovanovic: how do we handle such a screening?
Ohashi: if someone doesn't work out the partner needs to take them back

Noumaru: will Subaru be part of NAOJ or will it be an independent organization?
Iwata: Subaru director will not be supervised by NAOJ any more, so in that sense I think it is outside the NAOJ organization. That's what we need to discuss with NAOJ
Noumaru: do we then still abide by NAOJ regulations for accounting, etc.?
Noumaru: another approach is that all NAOJ members become RCUH...
Ohashi: but that would increase our budget.

Jeschke: another issue is safety. We have people coming in from other organizations, with yet potentially more languages, and could this further compromise our safety
Jovanovic: Subaru telescope has to set the rules, and the partner's have to abide by them
Clergeon: the people need to respect the rules here, and we need to keep the manager here, which should evaluate them.
Noumaru: the current rules say that Subaru can terminate RCUH employee for safety violation, but NAOJ employee cannot be terminated even by the director--this is according to NAOJ rule. It's a problem that the rule is not consistent.
Ohashi: we could have a contract..
Jovanovic: can the director remove someone from the site at least?
Arimoto: I'm not sure
Clergeon: for the next partners phase, we can clarify that and have explicit rules?

Kim: question about SSP: access to SSP data should be to the entire community of the partner--there should be no limit to the number of scientists from that partner
Iwata: hopefully we should have some specific number that can be reasonable for them to embrace, almost the entire community
Kim: so like, 100?
Iwata: no, I don't want to fully open the partner, because if their community is a lot larger then it is unfair
Kim: the burden of duty is on Subaru first--we have to get PFS understanding first, etc.
Iwata: from SSP after PFS it could be negotiated. For PFS it is more difficult.
Jovanovic: the SSP program should be considered it's own entity that could be negotiated with
Iwata: we'd like to have some attractive package including open use and survey data, but we should be consistent
Jovanovic: for me as a Subaru employee, can I log on and access PFS data?
Iwata: you have to be a PFS member.
Kim: is there a difference between HSC and PFS?
Iwata: the HSC and PFS data is fully open to Japanese researchers and you are Japanese researchers.