Next week, I will be meeting with both my supervisors (and the PhD course director) to discuss coming back to the PhD after a break.
This, I think, is a good chance to voice a variety of concerns. One of them is that I feel my 2nd supervisor should have more input. I'm interested to know if, generally, that is acceptable?
My specific case, fwiw:
On paper Professor X and Dr Y (national lab) have equal supervision. In reality, Professor X has contributed almost nothing intellectual to this project; this, really, is Dr Y's project. Professor X will ocassionally invite me to lunch and 'check in', which might be fine if serious intellectual progress could be made. Instead, I just recount what I've already done, discuss some university admin, and then we part ways.
I'm sure Professor X is a capabale researcher, but I just personally haven't seen it. On the other hand, I don't think Dr Y is all that great, but we meet (too) frequently. Perhaps its the national lab, but I want more exposure to the University - not less. Hence I thought to bring up at the meeting whether we should aim to have Professor X and Dr Y meet me at the same time, so that we can brainstorm progress / direction together. This, naturally, would ensure Professor X is able to contribute to the academic picture better. Good or bad idea?