 |
|
|
| Home | Collaboration | Notes | Meetings | Subsystems | Search |
| ||||||||||
Summary of Collaboration Board meeting, 20th January 1999From: n.harnew1@physics.ox.ac.uk Comments------------------------------------------------------------- Summary of the LHCb Collaboration Board special meeting to discuss draft revisions to the LHCb constitution (CERN, January 20th 1999) ------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes taken by N. Harnew/ P. Kooijman
Present: G.Carboni (Rome "Tor Vergata"), H.Dijkstra (CERN), N.Harnew * (Oxford), J.Harvey + (CERN), H-J.Hilke * (CERN), B.Jean-Marie (LAL Orsay), J.LeFrancois + (LAL Orsay), P.Kooijman (Amsterdam), T.Nakada * (CERN), P.Perret (Clemont-Ferrand), W.Ruckstuhl (FOM), M.Schmelling (MPI Heidelberg), B.Schmidt + (CERN), A.Schopper + (CERN), O.Schneider (Lausanne), N.Semprini-Cesari (Bologna), G.Wilkinson (Oxford). * non-voting CB members + Coordinators (invited attendees) [10 institutes represented]
Apologies: E.Aslanides, T.Bowcock, C.Coca, V.Gibson, A.Halley, V.Lindenstruth, R.Miquel, F.Muheim, A.Vorobyov, D.Websdale. (A.Bay, R.Forty, F.Harris sent other representatives). The meeting was chaired by N. Harnew.
Agenda: 1) Approval of the agenda 2) Revision of the Constitution 2-1) Management positions 2-2) Higher management structure 2-3) Technical Board 2-4) Physics Planning Group/ Physics Coordinator 2-5) Collaboration Board Chairman and Subsystem Coordinators 2-6) Plenary meeting 2-7) Voting procedures 2-7-1) The Quorum 2-7-2) Voting majorities 2-8) More general revisions 3) Any other business
1) Approval of the Agenda ------------------------- The agenda was approved. N.Harnew welcomed the Coordinators to the meeting. He pointed out that the meeting was not quorate, therefore no decisions (only recommendations and proposals) could be made. N.Harnew announced that there is a single candidate who has been nominated for Spokesperson and who has also agreed to stand - Tatsuya Nakada. We now begin a week's period where further nominations can be added to the list of candidates. Since the Election Committee would also need time to check for willingness to stand etc, it is essential that any further nominations are Emailed to N.Harnew as soon as possible. The final list of Spokesperson candidates will be sent out on the 27th January. The first proposals for constitution changes were distributed as a starting point for discussion. These proposals resulted from the meeting which was held on the 22nd October and the CB meeting of 6th December. The proposals had also been distributed via Email to all CB members in advance of the meeting. The Chairman introduced the purpose of the meeting. The aims are to work through and discuss the circulated proposals, and to reach agreement in principle so that a new version of the Constitution can be drafted for discussion in the next CB meeting (19th February).
2) Revision of the Constitution ------------------------------- 2-1) Management positions ------------------------- The terms of reference of the LHCb Management (defined throughout as Spokesperson, Deputy Spokesperson and Technical Coordinator) were discussed. The length of terms of office and terms of re-appointment for the management positions are defined in the current constitution by the following text: "Appointments will be made for up to three-year terms, with the possibility of re-election. For the positions of Spokesperson and Deputy Spokesperson, only one re-election is possible in normal circumstances." It is proposed to write into the constitution for the position of Spokesperson : "Although the term is nominally for three years, candidates would not be discounted if they can only commit to two years." At the next CB meeting (19th February) there will be a discussion of the voting timetable and procedure for the re-election of the Technical Coordinator. The term of office of the Technical Coordinator appointment will be discussed at this time. In the current constitution, the Deputy Spokesperson is nominated by the Spokesperson, and ratified by the Collaboration Board. It is proposed that this should remain unchanged [on the assumption that a Management Board is created (see item 2-2)]. In this case, the Deputy is not strictly "re-elected" by the CB, as is specified in the current constitution. Since the Spokesperson nominates his/her Deputy, the positions of Spokesperson and Deputy are linked. Hence, when the term of office of Spokesperson comes to an end, so does the term of office of the Deputy. It is proposed that this is explicitally written into the constitution. Of the management positions above, it is proposed that only the Spokesperson and the Technical Coordinator have a residency requirement at CERN. It is proposed that the clause "More than one Management position can be filled by the same person if elected by the CB" (Section 2.2, page 6) is completely removed from the constitution. Conversely, it is proposed NOT to add the clause "One person cannot fill more than one Management position." It is proposed that the terms of reference of any election committee for management positions, or the details of the voting procedure, should not be specifically written into the constitution in order to allow flexibility. There was no agreement reached on whether to write the method of voting into the constitution: Email, postal ballot, or voting in the CB. This will be discussed at the next CB meeting, with a vote to resolve the issue if necessary.
2-2) Higher management structure -------------------------------- It is proposed that LHCb introduce a higher management structure, called the "Management Board". [Particularly, "Executive Board" or "Advisory Board" are considered inappropriate titles.] The LHCb Management retains the executive power within the collaboration. The Management Board should be purely advisory, and should aid the Management in reaching decisions. The Management Board discusses all recommendations from the Technical Board and the Physics Planning Group; the Management Board considers physics issues as well as technical and financial issues. It is proposed that the Management Board consists of the Spokesperson (chair), Technical Coordinator, Deputy Spokesperson, Physics Coordinator, Collaboration Board Chairperson (ex officio) and five other members. These five members should be nominated by the Collaboration Board Chairperson in consultation with the Spokesperson, and ratified by the CB. It is proposed that the terms of office of these members would be for two years, with only one re-appointment possible in normal circumstances. There was no agreement reached on how the Management Board should reach its recommendations. One CB member proposed that the Management Board should aid the Management in reaching decisions "by means of a formal vote". This issue will be discussed at the next CB meeting, with a vote to resolve the issue if necessary. Meeting times of the Management Board should be flexible (and at least 8 times per year). Any requirement on meeting times should not be written into the constitution. There should be no CERN residency requirement of the Management Board members (with the exception of the Spokesperson and the Technical Coordinator). It is proposed NOT to add into the Constitution a minimum quorum requirement at any meeting. It is proposed that any major recommendation by the Management Board, and the corresponding Management decision, is announced in a written summary. In particular, any major decision requiring ratification by the Collaboration Board should be distributed to the CB at least two weeks ahead of the CB meeting. Recommendations of the Management Board and any Management decisions taken should also be reported at the Plenary meeting prior to the CB ratification.
2-3) Technical Board -------------------- The following terms of reference are proposed for the Technical Board. The Technical Board should deal with matters of : o Standardisation, optimisation and safety. o Cost issues (contingencies, ceilings and reductions). o Special problem areas (resources, milestones and schedules). o Preparation of TDR's. o Preparation of decisions of options (and the review process). o General issues (installation, beampipe, magnet). The TB should have the following membership : o Spokesperson o Technical Coordinator (chair) o CB Chairperson (ex-officio) o Deputy Spokesperson (ex officio) o The Coordinators [Here "Coordinators" refers to the Sub-System Coordinators, the Task Force Coordinators, the Physics Coordinator and the Test-Beam Coordinator.] Additional experts can be invited through the Technical Coordinator according to the agenda, and proposed by any TB member. Minutes of Technical Board meetings are recorded, and made available to the collaboration. The Technical Coordinator reports on Technical Board business at the Plenary meeting. The following review procedure is proposed for major decisions. The review procedure will be drafted as an annexe to the constitution in the first instance. o Most decisions should be taken in the subsystem groups wherever possible. o If a decision is considered a major one by the Technical Board or Management, a review procedure is launched. o Two referees are nominated by the Management, after discussion in the Technical Board. These referees must come from outside the subsystem being reviewed. o A Review Panel is then appointed consisting of the subsystem coordinator and the two referees. The Review Panel can invite any experts ad-hoc from inside LHCb. They can also invite from outside LHCb (but this must be endorsed by the Management). The Spokesperson, Technical Coordinator and Collaboration Board Chairman may participate in the Review Panel discussions. o The recommendations of the Review Panel are discussed in the Technical Board, who further make a recommendation. o The recommendations from the Technical Board are passed to the Management, which are then discussed in the Management Board. o The final decision is made by the Management and passed to the Collaboration Board for endorsement. o If the decision is not endorsed by the Collaboration Board, the Management prepare a new decision.
The Technical Board should not make recommendations direct to the Collaboration Board (as specified in the current constitution Section 2.4). It is proposed that the specific roles of the task forces (tracking, particle ID, physics etc.) should not be written into the constitution. However, the possibility to create task forces when necessary should be written in.
2-4) Physics Planning Group/ Physics Coordinator ------------------------------------------------ There was a general discussion on the overlap of the Physics Task Force and the Physics Planning Group (PPG). The PPG, as described in the current constitution, has not yet been set up. It is accepted that there is a need to form such a group some time in the future, and that its terms of reference need to be properly defined. In the current constitution, the terms of reference of the PPG closely describe the role of the Physics Task Force, which is active, and for which there is an immediate need. The exception to this is the role of "optimization of the detector in view of complexity and cost" in the terms of reference of the PPG. It is suggested that N.Harnew should draft a description of the PPG in consultation with T.Nakada, in such a way that the nomenclature of the PPG and Physics Task Force would be resolved, and the role of the Physics Coordinator would be correctly defined. The current constitution states that : "The Physics Planning Group is chaired by the Physics Coordinator who would normally be the Spokesperson." It is proposed that the position of the Physics Coordinator should not be assigned as the Spokesperson by default, ie. the words "who would normally be the Spokesperson" should be removed. The Physics Coordinator should be nominated by the Spokesperson and ratified by the CB (under the assumption that the Management Board is set up). It is proposed that there should be no CERN residency requirement on the Physics Coordinator.
2-5) Collaboration Board Chairman and Subsystem Coordinators ------------------------------------------------------------ It is proposed to change the terms of office (and terms of re-appointment) in the following way :
o Collaboration Board Chairperson : Present constitution - 2 years renewable. Proposed revision - Change to 2 years, renewable for a further 2 years. Only one re-election to be possible in normal circumstances. o Subsystem Coordinators/ Subsystem Project Leaders : Present constitution - Subsystem Coordinator appointments up to the commissioning of the LHCb detector. Proposed revision - Subsystem Coordinator appointments up to the subsystem TDR, thereafter Subsystem Project Leaders are appointed for 2 year periods. In normal circumstances, re-appointments are possible only up to the commissioning of that subsystem. It is proposed that there should be no CERN residency requirements for the appointments above.
2-6) Plenary meeting -------------------- The current role of the Plenary meeting is favoured. It is emphasised that collaboration members should be involved in all decisions via the plenary meeting, as specified in Section 2.3 of the current constitution. Major technical decisions should be specified as such as an agenda item.
2-7) Voting procedures ---------------------- Due to lack of time, the voting procedures were only very briefly addressed. There was a very quickly reached consensus on these issues. 2-7-1) The Quorum ----------------- It is proposed that there should be significant changes in how the quorum is calculated (in the current constitution, those attending at least one of the two previous CB meetings make up the quorum). It is proposed to simplify and relax the present quorum definition. It is proposed that the quorum for any Email vote should be taken from ALL participating institutes. In this regard, a "participating institute" is one which contributes a minimum amount to the LHCb Common Fund and the running costs of the experiment. It is proposed that "an institute" may be a group of institutes wishing to act as a single entity with a single member and single vote in the Collaboration Board (and de facto sharing a Common Fund payment). It is proposed that this should be written into the constitution. It is proposed that for any decisions to be taken in a CB meeting, at least 2/3 of the participating institutes must be present for that meeting to be quorate. At present, those institutes who do not attend CB meetings lose their voting rights. It is now proposed that there should be a periodic review to decide whether those institutes who do not actively participate in the experiment should remain in the collaboration.
2-7-2) Voting majorities ------------------------ The new quorum definitions mean that procedures are now much simpler : o For Management and CB Chairperson elections : Present constitution - 2/3rd of institutes that participate in the vote and 50% of the quorum. Proposed revision - 2/3rd of institutes that participate in the vote. o When voting in new institutes : Present constitution - 2/3rd of institutes that participate in the vote and 30% of the quorum. Proposed revision - 2/3rd of institutes that participate in the vote. o When changing the Constitution : Present constitution - 2/3rd of institutes that participate in the vote and 50% of the quorum. Proposed revision - 2/3rd of institutes that participate in the vote. o When voting in Subsystem Coordinators : Present constitution - A simple majority of institutes that participate in the vote and 30% of the quorum. Proposed revision - A simple majority of institutes that participate in the vote. o When voting on any decision to be taken in a CB meeting : Present constitution - A simple majority of institutes that participate in the vote and 30% of the quorum. Proposed revision - A simple majority of institutes that participate in the vote. The current constitution states that any institute which declares that it does not wish to participate in a vote is not counted towards the quorum (similarly if the institute doesn't reply to an Email invitation to vote). It is proposed to retain this - hence a retention of the words "that participate in the vote" in the definitions above. It is proposed that termination before the end of the term of office of any managerial appointment should require at least a 50% majority vote of all participating institutes (as defined in 2-7-1 above).
2-8) More general revisions --------------------------- The typography LHC-B should be replaced by LHCb throughout. The points which refer to the period before the Technical Proposal should be revised (pages 5, 6 and 8). There should be standardization of the terms "ratification", "appointment", "nomination", "election" wherever appropriate.
*** ACTION *** N.Harnew to draft a new version of the constitution in consultation with T.Nakada and H-J.Hilke for a first discussion at the next Collaboration Board meeting (19th February).
3) Any Other Business --------------------- There was none.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||