Facilities Representatives Discussion Group: Difference between revisions
From canSAS
CswikiAdmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary  | 
				No edit summary  | 
				||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* Nick Terrill (Diamond)  | * Nick Terrill (Diamond)  | ||
===News/Status===  | ===News/Status===  | ||
After the workshop, it became clear that not only were there a significant number of facilities fromt he meeting who wanted to participate, but quite a number of facilities that were unable to attend were mentioned as important to have particpate.  This raises the question of how best to proceed.  a tele/video conference with that many nodes and people is not likely to be productive, yet reducing representation seems to defeat the purpose of the group.  Some suggestions so far are:  | |||
* divide into subgroups of no more than 6 or 7 (probably high for a vido link and a bit high for real discussions). This would require some kind of uber group to facilitate the communication between groups. Two ways to do this:  | |||
 * Make up of groups is set radomly.   | |||
 * Regional groups are formed with the uber group having a representative from each of the regional groups  | |||
[[Category:Working Groups]]  | [[Category:Working Groups]]  | ||
Revision as of 03:01, 8 December 2007
Participants
- Peter Boesecke (ESRF)
 - Paul Butler (NIST)
 - Daniel Clemens (Germany)
 - Charles Dewhurst (ILL)
 - Eliott Gilbert (ANSTO)
 - Rex Hjelm (LANSCE)
 - Pete Jemian (APS)
 - Steve King (ISIS)
 - Ken Littrell (ORNL)
 - Adrian Rennie (Users)
 - Nick Terrill (Diamond)
 
News/Status
After the workshop, it became clear that not only were there a significant number of facilities fromt he meeting who wanted to participate, but quite a number of facilities that were unable to attend were mentioned as important to have particpate. This raises the question of how best to proceed. a tele/video conference with that many nodes and people is not likely to be productive, yet reducing representation seems to defeat the purpose of the group. Some suggestions so far are:
- divide into subgroups of no more than 6 or 7 (probably high for a vido link and a bit high for real discussions). This would require some kind of uber group to facilitate the communication between groups. Two ways to do this:
 
* Make up of groups is set radomly. * Regional groups are formed with the uber group having a representative from each of the regional groups