Dear all,

A few things have cropped up recently that may be of interest to you..

1. In view of the Mineralogical Society winter meeting having a session on
"Mineral Deposits of the Mantle " we have arranged to move this years AGM
from Royal Holloway as previously advertised.  The AGM will now be held at
University of Durham on the 3rd and 4th of January allowing us to
participate in the Min. Soc. half day session. The other 1.5 days will run
as a typical MDSG AGM.  The contact convenor is still David Alderton at
Royal Holloway (Tel: 01784-443585 (direct); Fax: 01784-471780; email:
[log in to unmask]). There are more details posted on the web-site. 

2. As some of you have noticed the address of the MDSG web-site has changed.
We have now registered a new domain name so the site may now be accessed at
http://mdsg.org.uk

3. The membership data-base we discussed at the AGM last year has been set
up and we are hoping the information will be on-line and accessible from the
web-page for members in the next few weeks. 

4. It is the turn of the UK to organise the next EUG Meeting in Strasbourg
in 2001.  If anybody out there wants to organise a symposium at EUG 2001
could you please get in touch with Richard Worden ([log in to unmask]) and a
member of the MDSG committee (just to keep us informed). 

5. And finally...I am copying a letter below sent by Chris Hawkesworth to
the Chairmen of the Specialist Groups of the Geol. Soc. about the future of
the Geoscience meetings for your perusal. If anybody has strong opinions on
his suggestions can you contact me and I will take this into account in my
initial reply. No firm action will be taken on this until it is discussed
fully at the AGM in January.

And thats about it...

Sarah



Dear colleagues,

As you may know there were concerns that Geoscience 2000 at Manchester
was less successful than previous Geoscience Meetings, and there is a
strong sense that things should be changed, perhaps quite radically, for
Geoscience 2002.  Following a recent meeting of the Science Committee I
am therefore writing to the Specialist Groups and Joint Associations to
ask for their advice and input about what we should do about Geoscience
2002.

A biennial Geoscience Meeting will only be a success if it has ownership
within and support from the Specialist Groups, not least because it is
unrealistic to expect many people to go to Specialist Group meetings and
Geoscience within a few months of each other.  Thus, the model I would
like to explore is simply to invite the Specialist Groups (either
singly, in partnerships between two or more Specialist Groups of the
Society, or with another Society or Institution) to have their annual
meetings in the same week in the same place on alternate years.  We
could also invite other bodies with whom we have close relationships to
join in and hold meetings during this period. This would then be the
basis for the revamped Geoscience Meetings. I envisage that the groups
would have ownership of their sessions (perhaps typically 1.5-2 days),
and that ownership would be vouchsafed by the Science Committee which is
responsible for the Geoscience Meetings. In particular it is important
to retain the opportunity for students to give talks, which is such an
important part of the present Specialist Group meetings.

In such a model, the Geological Society would provide help in organising
and publicising the meetings (including registration and accommodation),
and the abstract volume, which could be on the web so that individuals
can down load just those sections of the meeting they are particularly
interested in. The Society would also co-ordinate perhaps 2 high profile
multidisciplinary symposia on each day of the conference. Geoscience
would therefore combine the informality and sense of community of the
specialist groups, with the opportunity to attend high profile
international sessions and to develop links between different subject
areas. 

A problem area is undoubtedly cost in that big meetings with 5-8
parallel sessions must have higher registration fees than small
meetings. However, as indicated above, the advantages are the breadth of
science available at bigger meetings, the international contacts, and
the support provided by the Geological Society. An aim would be to keep
the registration fee below 100, and significantly less for students, by
having 1500 registrants, but that in turn will depend on significant
support from the Specialist Groups. It is also extremely difficult to
find suitable sites for large meetings in the UK, and so we have already
had to reserve conference facilities in UMIST for the week before Easter
in 2002. Some of you may be less than enthusiastic at the thought of
returning to Manchester, but UMIST has a well designed and purpose built
conference complex that is a great improvement on the facilities for
Geoscience 2000.

Some Specialist Groups have already indicated their enthusiasm for this
style of conference, even though Easter does clash with some field work
activities. So, I write to ask if your Specialist Group would be keen to
participate in Geoscience 2002, perhaps in the ways outlined here. The
important point is that ownership should stay with the Specialist
Groups, and rather than a yes/no answer I would appreciate knowing what
you feel about the model suggested here, and whether there are changes
you would like to see made, or matters that you feel should be
considered, to facilitate an 'in principle' decision to participate. It
may also be that it is already too late to change your plans for 2002,
in which case you might like to comment on whether your group would wish
to participate in Geoscience 2004.

I look forward to hearing from you,

With best wishes,

Chris





**************************************************************
Dr. Sarah Gleeson,
School of Earth Sciences,
University of Leeds,
Leeds LS2 9JT.

Phone: +00 44 113 233-5199
Fax: +00 44 113 233-5259
MDSG website: http://www.mdsg.org.uk



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%