Cycle 5:Accessible stellar photometry

[mwcraig]

No description provided.

[AnaGabela]

Hi,
Can you let us know what is the hourly rate you will be charging? We will need that for the paperwork.

Also can you clarify who will be the payee? Do you have a name, other than you, who will be paid for this project?

Thanks!
A

[mwcraig]

@AnaGabela -- tentatively, the pay rate will be $50/hour. I can come up with a list of additional people who would receive funds. Should I do that for my other proposals too?

[AnaGabela]

Please react to this comment to vote on this proposal (👍, 👎, or no reaction for +0).

[kelle]

The Cycle 5 funding request process has been hugely successful! On the downside, that means our funds are severely oversubscribed. Even after the Finance Committee and SPOC have taken into consideration community feedback/voting and alignment with the roadmap, there are still more funding requests than we can afford in 2026.

We would like to stretch the budget as far as possible, and to fund as many activities as possible, while making sure the Project remains volunteer-driven. Hence, we would like to know if this project will still meet its deliverables if your minimum budget is reduced by 25%, 50%, or 100%. Or if there’s some other minimum, feel free to specify that instead.

As a reminder, there will be more funding for 2027 and we expect the Cycle 6 call for 2027 funding requests to begin in the Fall of 2026.

Thank you for your engagement and understanding as we continue to optimize our funding and budgeting processes and the balance of volunteer vs funded work!

(@mwcraig )

[mwcraig]

Here are the things I think could be done with partial funding of the minimum (we would get there by reducing the deliverables though):

1. With a 25% reduction from the minimum budget (i.e. funded $3,375), I would offer pay for the outside testers/users at the hgiest rate I could. The postage stamp feature would be dropped.
2. At 50% reduction from the minimum budget (i.e. funded $2,250), I would expect there will be fewer testers because of the reduced rate of pay. Workshop and tutorials would not be developed, in favor of simply building out the current documentation.
3. If the minimum budget is reduced by 100% (i.e. no money I guess), I anticipate adding an ubercal-style calibration no matter what. Much of the work is done, though some technical details need to get sorted out and I need to see how well it scales. I'd still probably invite folks to kick the tires on the software, no idea what sort of uptake I'd get.