September 27, 2007, 3pm EDT

Discussion of candidates for leader of the Omnibus proposal. Shaul reports that Steve Meyer appears to be a front runner. He has garnered a larger number of nominations relative to other nominees.

Shaul had two phone conversations with Steve.

First (Monday, Oct 24) discussion: Steve agrees with the direction the committee is going. He agrees that a common report is what the community should do. He would be willing to lead, but is reluctant. He isn't sure he is the right person for the job.

Second discussion (Thursday, Oct 27): Steve explain's more about his hesitations. He doesn't see himself as an effective lobbyist, a role that he perceives would be necessary once discussions with the decadal panel begin. Shaul points out that there are two distinct tasks. One is leading the effort to write a report (which is one of the formal outcomes of the 'concept study'), and the second is giving presentations to the decadal panel and in other relevant venues. The second task of disseminating the report can and should probably be distributed among many members of the community. The discussion continues into questions of how the budget would be distributed. Shaul acknowledges that there are open questions to settle, but that we would rather first have a PI on board and then settle these issues, than present a future PI with a 'done-deal'. Steve does not mention any serious conflicts with scheduling over the next 12-24 months (with the exception of a potential conflict over the next month). Conclusion: if Steve is chosen he would want to first talk to members of the community before he signs on.

Shaul had an e-mail exchange with Lyman. Lyman needs to think more about the possibility of his leadership. He also needs to talk to other people.

Shaul's situation is similar to Gary: reluctant to assume role. Main reason: direct conflict with the schedule of EBEX, which should have a test flight this year and than preparation for LDB. Secondary reason: Shaul believes that having high visibility outside the field is a positive for this role. There is more external visibility for other nominees.

Some members of the committee voice the opinion that the second consideration is not a serious limitation.

Hinshaw: his response is on the web.

Ruhl: he is not going to the pole and has a sabbatical next year, so he thinks he can find the time. He hasn't formed a strong opinion. Would need to think more. He would want to understand what is the support structure for whoever is the leader of the effort.

Devlin: if the committee thinks that he is a strong candidate (e.g. more than a single person nominating) he would need to think carefully about how this work matches his other commitments.

Following this report the committee discusses and agrees on the process for selection. The process is outlined in the e-mail that was sent right after the telecon to the entire committee.

Josh asks whether the leader of the proposal will join the PPPDT. A discussion ensues. There is a shared view that the leader should work closely with the PPPDT, for example participate in all telecons and meetings.