Meeting slides are on innerspace. Reach out to Nestor Espinoza to get them.
1. News & announcements
Sarah Kendrew stepping down as TSO WG Deputy Lead during commissioning.
Knicole Colon asks about the JWebbinars — when are the TSO ones going to be uploaded? Nestor Espinoza mentions Cami Pacifici and JWebbinar team heavily working on this. Probably by the end of the month, but nothing certain (ton to do on all fronts!).
Loic Albert advertises that he will be presenting in the CalWebb WG on not to use photom step for SOSS, as this poses troubles for the spectral extraction. Will also discuss if to perhaps move photom step after so it is a 1D correction.
Discussion as to whether push for target changes should be done sooner rather than later. Two questions on strategy: timing, and whether request should be done jointly between instruments.
The main question is how to make it easy for the JDB to understand this need as efficiently as possible. Nestor Espinoza sent some e-mails to figure this out. Sarah Kendrew mentions that commissioning leads on each instrument should be aware of anything we say to the JDB — so plan is to coordinate with them as well. After that, perhaps go to Scott et al. to figure out how to move forward.
Consensus is that the best would be to start movement on this by mid-February. Main questions to answer are: why not wait until ERS observations? Why not proposed targets before?
Updates on Leonardo Ubeda 's NIRSpec pipeline validation. He found that for some pixels, errors on the slope are zeroes. Unclear why this is so. He also finds that (scatter)/(pipeline-estimated errorbars) is actually smaller than 1 by a factor of ~0.7.
Michael Regan suggested that this factor is suspisiously close to 1/sqrt(2). Might be a reference file issue? Stephan Birkmann mentions that the reference file includes this factor due to CDS.
Zero-slopes also a mistery. Loïc mentions that he also saw this whenever groups had negative counts, but the effect dissapeared in further versions of the pipeline.