Comments by Roberta on poster

[cdeil]

I got these comments by @robertazanin a week ago on the poster draft (before the proceeding was written) that we should discuss and decide on in the telcon today at 4 pm:

1. Generally, I am missing some nice picture… Why don’t we show the Crab image with HESS data and its corresponding spectrum? You could refer to it when you say that the software is going to be tested on existing data.

2. Don’t we want to mention that gammapy can be used also for fermi analysis and it will allowed for joint fits of Fermi+anay IACT data?

3. I personally do not see the point of figure 2. Better to put a spectrum or another image.

4. why don’t we say that we have also the 3D analysis? Everything is under development.

5. I would also mention that you already have a 30?-people community of developers.

6. Does it make sense to have a sentence on the maintanability of the software?

[cdeil]

Generally, I think we should reduce the amount of text on the poster (see also comment by @LarsMohrmann in #3), so I'm not sure if we should add info on points 2 / 5 / 6. In the proceeding we have space, so there I'm +1 to add that info. Pull requests welcome.

---

For suggestion 1 -- I think we should stick with an example showing simulated CTA data. The Crab nebula as a HESS point source doesn't make for a better picture. We could add a spectrum. E.g. there's this one:
https://github.com/gammapy/icrc2017-gammapy-poster/blob/master/proceeding/figures/gammapy_example_spectrum.png
which like the image is from 1.5 hours of CTA obs on the Galactic center and the analysis here:
https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/gammapy/gammapy-extra/blob/master/notebooks/cta_data_analysis.ipynb

Problem is that this image / spectrum isn't very nice, but that we don't have a much nicer sky model / dataset / analysis and I don't have time this week to make something. So I'd suggest that either someone else sends nice pictures, or we stick with what we for now, and then re-consider adding something nice for the final proceeding by the end of July.

---

I personally do not see the point of figure 2. Better to put a spectrum or another image.

If you look at the proceeding and Antonio's comments: would you still recommend removing the code example? from the poster only or also proceeding?

In the proceeding I was actually thinking of changing it to also show the implementation of the fill_events method, as an example how to implement an algorithm using Python / Numpy / Astropy (as a second panel on the right).

Thoughts?

[cdeil]

Here's a second draft for the poster:
https://github.com/gammapy/icrc2017-gammapy-poster/blob/master/poster/icrc2017-gammapy-poster-v2.pdf

It mainly follows the feedback by @robertazanin, @rlopezcoto and @lmohrmann :

• small update of author list and fixes in affiliations
• Add a spectrum plot example (provided by @jjlk )
• reduce and simplify text
• add a reference to the other posters with CTA studies using Gammapy

Further comments and suggestions welcome!
(especially very concrete ones concerning text to add / remote / change that I can quickly apply)

[cdeil]

I didn't receive any further comments, so I uploaded v2 of the poster to CTA SAPO just now:
https://portal.cta-observatory.org/Bodies/SAPO/Lists/Contributions/Item/displayifs.aspx?List=5c13b9ae-d45a-4ca5-bd82-fecc4e28bb43&ID=857&Web=7107e18d-b8af-474d-ac5d-0769750183d4