Re: Introduction and some comments ;-)

[Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

Mark;l and all,

As you can see from the other posts, I do not try to run tass this 
way.  For a while, we had someone in the group who liked to make project 
plan diagrams for the software.  I think there is a tech note on the subject.

I do not try to *run* tass in any way.  I do try to lead.  That is a lot 
different from directing tass.  But note that tass has no rules.  If you 
would like to organize a collaborative plan, then you are free to do 
so.  Possibly you could put together a team that would work.  You could 
then be "boss" and direct that group if that pleased you.

In general, I support anyone trying to do anything that is related to an 
all sky survey.  I think the only thing I would fight is if someone came 
along that wanted to have membership rules and regulations and meetings and 
such as do other professional organizations.  You are member of tass if you 
want to be.  There are no other rules.

So Mark, organize the people meeting here in tass that want to be organized 
to do this work.  You have my 100% support to try to do this.  I promise to 
send all the data that you need.  Possibly a group effort will win out over 
the individual efforts here.  It can do no harm to try.    But if you put 
something together, then you get to do it your way.  So you could have 
meetings and members and ...  You could meet here, but you would not be 
tass.  You could have your own name meeting at tass.  I am not tass.  No 
one is tass if I have my way.

I actually think that there is a good chance that you or someone else could 
put together an analysis group.  I get lots of mail from people who want to 
join a collaborative effort.  If you announce one, they might sign on.

Tom Droege

At 04:56 PM 1/30/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Bottom line:  the first thing you need is a project plan.  With a good 
>plan, we could farm out the work to those most qualified to perform each 
>task.  Collaboratively, we could get the data reduction flowing toward 
>some usable results.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Mark