Summary of First IVS Directing Board Meeting Held February 11, 1999, at Wettzell Fundamentalstation, Germany Notes by N. Vandenberg, IVS Coordinating Center Director Attendees: J. Campbell, A. Whitney, G. Beutler, N. Capitaine, E. Himwich, M. Eubanks, S. Matsuzaka, T. Kondo, A. Nothnagel, P. Tomasi, E. Reinhart, C. Ma, W. Cannon, W. Schlueter, N. Vandenberg 1. Welcome and Opening Remarks After a welcome by Ewald Reinhart of BKG, James Campbell described the work of the CSTG VLBI Subcommission over the past year. The goal was to establish a service for VLBI similar to that for GPS and SLR. Cooperation within the VLBI community now works well and results are available, but for a stable future and the ability to cope with problems the new service will give our community more vibility and lead to improved relationships. We are now equipped to face future challenges with a stable group, good communications and a demonstrated commitment to international work. He said, "I leave this group with 'a laughing eye and a crying eye'". Gerhard Beutler, on behalf of CSTG and IAG, thanked James for the role he played this year. The final report of the Subcommission will be presented at the next CSTG Executive Committee meeting (March 22 in Paris). 2. Discussion about IVS Chair James Campbell started the discussion by stating that the goals of the new IVS are to have 1) an operational network, 2) products, and 3) timeliness. The IVS Chair should not be a partisan member but rather an integrating member. His principle aim is to get the consensus of the group. Gerhard Beutler commented on his work as the first IGS Chair. It is unfair to say that no labor is involved in being the Chair. It is important to give direction, but the Chair cannot represent any one side. The IVS Chair must play a leading role during the next IAG period as we are finding ways for the three services to work together, not in competition but in collaboration because all three services must contribute to the big picture in space geodesy. Several Board members commented that they felt that the Chair needs to play an active role in external group representation. The Chair should actively engage with the other services by being "pro-active" and finding methods by which the collaborations can work. Balance and guidance are required. The Chair needs to promote the growth of IVS and take a broad view. Another role for the Chair is to make the various IVS member groups work together. We must intensify our already existing cooperation. The Chair should have a leading role but he cannot do everything. He should integrate our jobs. The Board members also felt that the Chair needs support from the Board and from the IVS members, as well as the time to devote energy to the many jobs he will have. Prior to the Board meeting the members were asked to submit nominations to James Campbell. Each nominee frankly presented his view of the Chair, the duties involved, and his suitability for the job. At the end of the discussion, one candidate remained willing and able to serve. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Board unanimously elected Wolfgang Schlueter as the IVS Chair. Wolfgang stated that he can see the goals of IVS and will work towards them. He requested the strong support of the Board. 3. Coordinating Center and Coordinator Plans Nancy Vandenberg presented the planned activities of the Coordinating Center. Activities are categorized into support, observing programs, information, and community involvement. She showed a draft of a diagram of the structure of IVS. She also showed an image of the draft IVS web page that is being hosted at Goddard. The availability of the IVS mail system will be announced to all the communities before March 1. Alan Whitney presented the Technology Coordinator plans. One important goal is a standard interface which he will focus on. Other initiatives are: forming a subgroup for timing, centralizing documentation links online, and keeping technology as a topic at meetings. Ed Himwich presented Network Coordinator plans. Performance standards need to be developed. This will give stations something with which to evaluate and improve themselves. Standards will also allow people providing remote support to point to a specification. It is best to provide training and system tests at the stations. He will focus on performance standards and station visits as essential parts of Network Coordination. Wolgang Schlueter recommended that he meet with the three Coordinators and discuss where their areas of responsibility will interface and agree on it. 4. IERS status and future Chopo Ma presented a report on the IERS status. The IERS is responsible for the TRF, CRF, EOP. The IERS consists of the Central Bureau and Coordinating Centers. The Central Bureau combines results and disseminates them. The Annual Report publishes results and comparisons. The new structure for the IERS includes Technique Centers, Product Centers, an Analysis Coordinator and a Central Bureau. The Board will have two representatives from each technique. The time schedule for the new IERS structure is not certain. 5. Analysis Coordinator and Products Discussion Nancy Vandenberg started the discussion by stating that the Steering Committee was not successful in convincing anyone to submit a proposal for Analysis Coordinator. We contacted numerous potential candidates but no one was able to make a proposal for the job. Chopo Ma then presented a possible list of products and schedule of availability. Marshall Eubanks noted that EOP needs to be turned out as soon as possible. We could do what we are doing now, but we should go for a quicker schedule to have a product that is competitive with IGS. Note that the lag time depends on how much study of the solution will be done. Ed Himwich felt that there should be defined users of the products before we go to the effort of weekly TRF solutions. Axel Nothnagel suggested the idea that we could decentralize the effort. The Analysis Coordinator could coordinate only, and administer, manage, or delegate the work in a hierarchical structure. Most Board members agreed that it would be extremely difficult for a single person to do all of the necessary combinations and comparisons. Others felt that we should twist some more arms to find a person and a center that could do the whole job. The Board decided to name NEOS as the Acting Analysis Coordinator. Their tasks will be to 1) coordinate the availability of existing Analysis Center products and 2) write a solicitation for the work of the Analysis Coordinator, breaking down the jobs into separate parts to which different people can respond. 6. Organizational Issues Nancy Vandenberg covered various items relating to IVS organizational questions and issues. The results of the discussion were: a. New Proposals. The IVS Board will review proposals for new components promptly. A response will be sent to the proposer within 2 weeks after receipt of the proposal. The existing proposal from Bordeaux Observatory to be an Analysis Center will be reviewed and a response sent within 2 weeks of the Board meeting. b. Australia. The Board noted the lack of IVS components in Australia. The IVS Chair will initiate contacts within Australia about participation in IVS. c. Astronomy groups. The Board felt that IVS needs a formal relationship with astronomy groups such as JIVE, NRAO, ATNF because we use many of the same facilities for data acquisition, correlation, and analysis. Wayne Cannon will contact these groups for discussions and report to the Board. d. Terms of Reference. The Steering Committee had noted several places in the ToR that need clarification. The items include: clarify institutional restrictions on Board members, define a "component", define a "network" and how it is to be recognized, clarify representative to IERS, clarify Analysis Centers description. Nancy Vandenberg and a small group will work on a revision to the ToR and present the new version by the next Board meeting. e. Alternates. The Board decided that alternates may not attend meetings in place of a Board member. Non-Board members may always be invited to attend a meeting if they have a special purpose such as presentation of a report. f. The Board named Chopo Ma as the IVS representative to the IERS Board. 7. VLBI Interface Standard Alan Whitney discussed his proposed interface standard. It has been distributed to a wide audience including ATNF. No feedback from NRAO yet. Several existing systems could be adapted to this interface. New systems should be designed this way, for example e-VLBI systems. IVS can encourage agreement on this standard. Alan will pursue agreements to the standard and request formal endorsement by the IVS at the next Board meeting. In other items, the Board decided the following: a. Logo contest. The Board will announce a contest for an IVS logo and ask people to send in their designs electronically. The designs will be posted on the web site. The Board will select the winner. The prize will be something like the first t-shirt printed with the logo on it. b. IVS Meeting. The first IVS annual technical meeting was tentatively planned for spring 2000. Possible locations for the meeting will be research by Nancy Vandenberg and Wolfgang Schlueter and presented at the next Board meeting. c. e-VLBI. Marshall Eubanks and Alan Whitney will prepare a presentation about e-VLBI for the next Board meeting. d. The next Board meeting will be during the IUGG meeting in Birmingham, England, in July 1999. Nancy Vandenberg will work out a date and location by contacting the meeting organizers.