TMR Network on Formation and Evolution of Galaxies Planning meeting: Garching, February 16/17 1996 Participants: Munich: Haehnelt, Kauffmann, Steinmetz, Tormen, White (MPA) Egami, Genzel (MPE) Bergeron, DaCosta, Renzini (ESO) Bender (LMU) Cambridge: Aragon-Salamanca, E. Terlevich, R. Terlevich. Durham: Frenk, Jenkins, (Lacey), Sharples. Leiden: Miley, Rottgering. Padova: Bressan, Chiosi, Cristiani. Paris: Bouchet, Charlot, Petitjean. Programme: 16/2: 10:30 - 11:00 Coffee 11:00 - 12:30 Brief Introduction by SW. Relevant programmes in Munich (MPA,MPE,ESO,LMU) 12:30 - 14:00 Lunch 14:00 - 15:00 Relevant programmes in Cambridge 15:00 - 15:30 Relevant programmes in Leiden 15:30 - 16:00 Tea 16:00 - 17:00 Relevant programmes in Durham 17:00 - 17:30 Relevant programmes in Padova (1st half) 19:30 Dinner at Nur Jahan, Schwabing 17/2: 09:00 - 09:30 Relevant programmes in Padova (2nd half) 09:30 - 10:30 Relevant programmes in Paris 10:30 - 11:00 Coffee 11:00 - 12:30 Discussion of network structure. 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch at Poseidon, Garching 14:00 - 16:00 Discussion of postdoc candidates. Science presentations: At J. Bergeron's suggestion all the speakers provided a summary highlighting the relevant science programmes at each of the partner institutes. Copies of these were distributed to everybody before the end of the meeting. Network goals, structure and management: Startup: SW summarised the current administrative state of the network. We expect to be financed as proposed: i.e. about 65kEcu per site per year for four years. The Commission intends to send out the official notification letters this week,and SW will go to Brussels for detailed discussion of management issues in a few weeks. The Commission is hoping to send out the initial instalment of funds in May or June. This will come to MPA which will then send money on to each of the associated contractors. (The contracts of association between the MPA and each of the other institutes will have to be set up in the next few months.) SW will have some flexibility in deciding the official starting date, and proposed aiming for a date at the end of the summer (1/9 or 1/10). All funds should be expended four years after this date (with no more than 6 months unfunded extension possible after it). It is unclear how much flexibility we have within the 4 year period - SW will check whether, for example, one could defer appointing a postdoc in the first year and so have two in post concurrently in the third year (such an arrangement might perhaps cause difficulties at the mid-term review). Science Programme: The scientific case of our proposal splits in 6 parts: - Distant radio galaxies - their structure and evolution (Rottgering) - Galaxy evolution in clusters and the field (Aragon-Salamanca) - Gas in young galaxies/ QSO absorption lines (Cristiani) - Stellar population synthesis and galaxy evolution (Charlot) - Phenomenological models for galaxy formation (Kauffmann) - Simulations of galaxy formation and of galaxy cluster evolution (Frenk) The group agreed that although the range of topics is broad, it should be possible to maintain a focussed programme if we concentrate our resources (in particular our postdoctoral appointments) on these core topics to help building upon the existing collaborative links between our groups. The scientist named after each topic agreed to be responsible for keeping track of network research within that subarea and for coordinating the corresponding annual working meetings (see below). C. Frenk suggested that we further focus our programme by planning to write a book at the end of our four years. This would not be a normal conference proceedings, but rather a text consisting of a series of chapters (for example one corresponding to each of our main science subareas) which we would team write within our working groups. There was consensus that this is a good idea and that planning such a chapter would help coordinate thinking (and develop joint research projects) within and between the subgroups. A second idea (from H. Rottgering) was that we should hold a "school" in our subject area for the graduate students within our network institutes. This would encourage the students to think more globally about problems and to consider projects involving partner institutes. This was also felt to be a good idea; it could be combined with the May 1997 network meeting which will (provisionally) be held at Ringberg Castle, south of Munich. Following a suggestion by R. Ellis, the group considered whether it would be advantageous to add Gravitational Lensing to our science programme. Several other related areas (Large-scale Structure, AGN Studies, Galactic Structure...) are also well represented within our institutes and are in a similar situation with respect to the TMR programme. The group felt that adding any of these to our core scientific case would make it substantially more difficult to maintain a coherent and well focussed programme, but that all can contribute significantly to this programme. It thus makes sense to keep good contact with these scientists, and to encourage them to present relevant results at our group meetings. Meetings: Our proposal states that we will have one full meeting of our network each year and one meeting of each of the groups dealing with the separate scientific subareas. As noted above six scientists agreed to take reponsibility for coordinating these latter workshops. These will presumably have their first working meetings towards the end of this year. SW has requested a one-week booking at Ringberg Castle in the latter part of May 1997. This is not yet finalised, but should provide an excellent environment for our next full network meeting and "graduate school". The castle will sleep 45 people but the lecture hall holds up to 65 with the last 20 in accommodation in the town. This seems the ideal size for our full group (with perhaps room for a few outside invitees). Exchanges: SW reminded the group that we proposed to spend a significant part of our travel funds enabling graduate students and young postdocs to make extended visits to partner institutes. Candidates for such stays (in the context of new or existing collaborations) need to be identified. Postdoctoral competition: After some discussion the group agreed that the criteria for appointing postdocs on our network funds should be as follows. (i) their background should be such that it is clear they will work on our CORE scientific programme as set out in the proposal. (ii) scientific excellence. (iii) once the above criteria are satisfied we should prefer candidates from one of the partner institutes or, failing that, from a disadvantaged part of the EU. The group agreed the following procedure for making appointments. The meeting on Saturday afternoon discusses the candidates as a way of exchanging our knowledge of the individuals concerned. The responsible scientist for each site takes home copies of all applications and decides, in consultation with other local scientists, on a ranked list of three candidates in accordance with the above criteria and with local requirements. This is e-mailed to SW by the morning of 24/2/96. SW will then combine the six lists and send them back to the responsible scientists on 25/2/96. Any necessary discussion of possible conflicts takes place on 26,27 Feb. and we make our (unofficial) offers on 28/2/96. SW agreed to check again on the exact status of our proposal and to suggest a suitable form of wording for the offers when sending out the ranked candidate list.