all,

Because ALMA is going into the construction phase, the current
way we have been handling ALMA science documents requires some
modifications.  While in the past we have been exploring a lot
of ideas, ALMA now requires detailed implementation. It becomes
important for the project to be able to distinguish properly
between ideas, working documents, and specifications. It is
currently difficult for an engineer to figure out whether a 
a particular idea exposed in a document must be implemented or not.

We have been using in the past ALMA Memos and the Project Book
for our purposes. The ALMA project has now installed the 
"SiteScape" server which is intended to be an archived repository
of all controlled ALMA documents. The Project Book will evolve
towards a more simplified description of the ALMA project.

Because "SiteScape" is a restricted area, and because a more
open approach is required for the Science aspects of ALMA, we propose
a "reviewed memos" approach, which attempts to keep the open spirit
of the Memos series, while implementing some control over the most
important documents. The basic idea is to have "reviewed memos" 
appearing both in the Memos series and in the SiteScape documentation
system, with a clear "stamp": "Reviewed by the Science IPT".

The 'reviewed memos' process will be as follows:
 1 - A memo is submitted to the normal ALMA memo series.
 2 - If it is perceived that the memo is relevant to the 
     issues addressed by our group, and contains material 
     which might affect decisions made by the project in 
     some way, then it will enter into the review process.
     The decision will be made by the appropriate group
     heads (Bryan Butler for calibration issues, John
     Conway for configuration issues, the project scientists
     for other issues), in concert with the project
     scientists (Stephane Guilloteau and Al Wootten).  The
     author(s) will be queried as to whether it is 
     acceptable for this memo to be reviewed.  An author
     may also specifically request that a memo be reviewed,
     but this does not guarantee that it will be reviewed.
 3 - The review process will consist of the following:
   a - Formal reviewers will be asked to review the memo,
       these reviewers to be selected by the appropriate
       group head and/or project scientists;
   b - Others may review the memo, on their own initiative;
   c - Reviews will be collected by the appropriate group
       head and/or project scientists and forwarded to the
       author(s); Reviews submitted to the mailing lists are
       archived automatically.
   d - The author(s) will prepare a reply to the reviews;
   e - The author(s) will prepare a new version of the memo,
       which will then be reviewed by the appropriate group
       head and/or the project scientists;
   f - If approved, the memo will be marked as such, and
       will be included in the sitescape collection of 
       documents, along with the associated review 
       documentation.  Note that the author(s) may also
       submit a revised memo to the regular memo series if
       desired, and the revised memo may be marked as a
       'fully reviewed' memo (wording TBD).


This is a significant departure from the way that we have been
operating in the past, with a much more structured and formal
mechanism for the memos (at least some of them).  We note, however,
that the computing division has been using a similar mechanism for
*all* of its memos (with admittedly significantly fewer memos).
Additionally, no author is *forced* to have a memo go through the
new review process, it is rather a choice to be made, in combination
with the appropriate people from the project itself.  We feel that
this added structure and formality is necessary, given the point
that we are at in the project, and the fact that we feel that we
can no longer operate in the freewheeling manner that has been
characteristic for us in the past.




Stephane Guilloteau, Science IPT Leader and ALMA Interim Project Scientist
Al Wootten, Science IPT Deputy Leader and U.S. Project Scientist
Bryan Butler, Calibration Group Head
John Conway, Configuration Group Head