Summary of Wide Field Spectroscopy break-out
We began with 4 talks:
	•  David Schlegel made the point that redshift surveys have grown larger by 10X every 10 years.  Nevertheless we appear to have an unsatiated appetite for spectroscopy 
		• lots of projects in 2010 decadal not realized.  Note: DESI and PFS were not in the decadal but are better than much of what was => we need to remain nimble and open to new opportunities that may develop
		• new technology may be a game changer:  GLAO, Germanium CCDs, low readnoise dectectors,  improvements in fiber positioners 
	•  Pat Hall gave an overview of the Maunakea spectroscopic explorer: plan to replace CFHT with 11.25 m mirror and a dedicated wide-field fiber spectrograph (1.5 deg FOV, 4332 fibers, medium and high resolution spectrographs)
		• now is the time to get involved 
	•  Tim Abbot discussed spectroscopic options for the Blanco 4-m.  He talked about the need to replace cooling system for DECam to make instrument swaps feasible.   He reviewed various fiber positioner options.  His caution was that fiber positioning is difficult, and concepts that work well in the lab may have issues on sky - proceed with caution 
	• Jeff Newman discussed the efficiency of various facilities (on 4-30-m telescopes) for carrying out the largest surveys proposed in the Kavli report. (LSST photo-z training survey; MW Halo survey;  Local group dwarfs and halo streams;  Galaxy Evolution survey;  Supernova host survey).  Due to the different requirements in terms of depth, survey area, and fibers per sq degree, different facilities were optimal for different projects — the biggest aperture was not always the winner  

	• In the next decade we probably want to consider a staged approach where we work with existing facilties in the short term,  consider something like a DESI-2 on a 4 or 6 m platform  (Blanco or Magellan) in the south,  and explore possibilities for stand alone facility like the Maunakea Spectroscopic Explorer by end of decade 
	•  The lack of long term funding streams for NOAO telescopes is unfortunate, but it does present us with an opportunity to sharpen our science cases, and move towards a more project-driven model.   
		• Large externally funded projects (e.g., DECam, DESI) help us keep the NOAO telescopes “in trust” for future uses. 
	• We should focus on the exciting science and the capabilities we need to accomplish it.  
		• There may be mid-scale funding ($50-$150M) opportunities if we develop very compelling scientific cases that can help push NSF in this direction