Home Collaboration E-mail Notes Meetings Subsystems Search

Summary of the LHCb Collaboration Board Meeting                                              (CERN, June 11th 1999)         Minutes taken by F. Harris  Present:   E.Aslanides (CPPM Marseille), A.Bay (Lausanne), B.Bouianov  (Espoo-Vantaa), T.Bowcock (Liverpool), G.Carboni (Rome "Tor Vergata"),  C.Coca (Bucharest), S.Conetti (Virginia), D.Crosetto (Rice),  L.De Paula (Rio de Janeiro), R.Forty (CERN), V.Gibson  (Cambridge), A.Golutvin (ITEP, Moscow), E.Guschin (INR, Moscow),  A.Halley (Glasgow), N.Harnew * (Oxford), F.Harris (Oxford),  H-J.Hilke * (CERN), B.Jean-Marie (LAL Orsay), C.Jiang (Beijing),  B.Koene (FOM), V.Lindenstruth (IHEP Heidelberg), G.Martellotti  (Rome "La Sapienza), C.Matteuzzi/M.Calvi - both part time (Milano),  R.Miquel (Barcelona), F.Muheim (Edinburgh), T.Nakada * (CERN),  V.Obraztsov (Serpukhov), P.Perret (Clemont-Ferrand), G.Polok (Cracow),    Y.Ranyuk (Kharkov), B.Saitta (Cagliari), N.Semprini-Cesari (Bologna),  U.Straumann (U.Heidelberg), M.Szczekowski (Warsaw), A.Vorobyov  (Gatchina), D.Websdale (Imperial College, London).         * non-voting members  [33 institutes represented]  The meeting was chaired by N. Harnew.  Apologies:  N. Harnew transmitted the apologies of M.Sannino, M.Schmelling  and Bernard Spaan.  Agenda    1) Approval of the agenda    2) Minutes of last meeting       - Approval of minutes       - Matters arising    3) Collaboration issues       New collaborators :         - Ferrara         - Others    4) Re-election vote of Technical Coordinator    5) Appointment of Ioana Videau to Deputy Spokesperson       - Discussion       - Procedure for formal vote    6) Feedback from referees, LHCC and matters arising    7) Financial and manpower matters       - Summary of the 26/27 April RRB meeting       - Status of IMoU's and timetable for MoU's       - Update on funding from institutes       - Update on institute manpower    8) Report from the Technical Board    9) Matters arising from the Plenary Meeting    10) Revision of LHCb Constitution        - Discussion of procedure for making changes    11) Editorial policy    12) LHCb conference talks    13) Any other business  1) Approval of the agenda     The agenda was approved. Item 5 was taken after item 2.  2) Minutes of the last meeting     Approval of minutes :         The minutes of the last meeting were approved.     Matters arising (which were not covered in other items     of the agenda) :       o Acceptance letters have been sent to Cracow and Warsaw.         The representatives of those institutes were welcomed         to the CB.  3) Appointment of Deputy Spokesperson  T. Nakada has proposed Ioana Videau to the position of  Deputy Spokesperson. Part of Ioana's responsibilities  would be to help with the management in areas of Trigger  and Computing, for which she had an ideal background  arising from her work in ALEPH over many years. Ioana will  spend 100% of her time on LHCb.  N.Harnew reminded the CB of the existing constitution, and  proposed that certain changes were appropriate before the  appointment of Deputy Spokesperson is made :      o The Deputy Spokesperson is nominated by the Spokesperson        at his/her discretion, and ratified by the CB.      o The appointment of Deputy Spokesperson is up to        a 3 year term with the possibility of re-appointment.        When the term of office of Spokesperson comes to an end,        so does the term of office of Deputy Spokesperson.      o The Deputy Spokesperson is an ex-officio member of the        Collaboration Board, Technical Board and Physics        Planning Group.  These proposed changes were agreed by the CB. The LHCb  constitution will be re-drafted accordingly.  The CB agreed to carry out the election by Email, and the  voting procedure will start immediately. The voting deadline  is 28 June.  3) Collaboration issues     Application of Univ. of Ferrara/INFN  T.Nakada reported that a letter of application had been  received from the University of Ferrara/INFN to join LHCb.  M.Savrie represented the Ferrara group. There was unanimous  support for accepting Ferrara into the collaboration.  5) Re-election vote of Technical Coordinator  There had been unanimous ratification vote of H-J.Hilke to  continue as LHCb Technical Coordinator. The overwhelming level  of support was noted, and H-J.Hilke was duly congratulated by  the CB.      6) Feedback from referees, LHCC and matters arising  T.Nakada reminded the CB that there had been 2 meetings with  the referees since the last CB meeting : one full meeting with  the Technical Board, and one meeting just with the LHCb  Management. The reaction of the referees had been positive.  Two documents have been submitted, one providing details of  the beam tests, and the other detailing the milestones and  project plans for all activities. The next meeting is in July,  which will concentrate on the areas of RICH photon detectors  and the Inner Tracker (results of the beam tests and the Silicon  back-up solution), and a report on the observations made on  the Lazarus effect in Silicon. In October there will be a full  review meeting.             7) Financial and manpower matters  i) Summary of the 26/27 April Resource Review Board (RRB)     meeting  T.Nakada gave a short summary of the outcome of the RRB. The  status of the experiment was presented, followed by some project  and budget issues. The main discussion was on the Interim  Memorandum of Understanding (IMoU).    ii) Status of IMoU's and the timetable for MoU's  The IMoU will cover the period up to the end of 2001.  The wording of the IMoU has now been accepted by the RRB.  It should be circulated to the funding agencies for signature  by the Research Director, Roger Cashmore.  There must be a minor revision to the LHCb constitution  regarding the terms of reference of the Technical Coordinator -  which will need to be consistent with the wording of the  final MoU : the Technical Coordinator should be a member of  the CERN staff for the duration of his/her term of office.  H.J-Hilke made it clear that this would not rule out candidates  from outside institutes, however they would need to become  CERN staff for the duration. The CB agreed that such wording  should be drafted into the constitution.  LHCb must submit a draft of the MoU for the construction phase  by autumn 2000, since the process to finalize the wording  and obtain all the signatures is expected to take a year or  so. H-J.Hilke will start a draft based on the ATLAS MoU.  LHCb has been advised by the RRB to follow as closely as  possible the format used by ATLAS and CMS. There will be many  annexes, within which will lie the substance of the MoU. The  MoU will define the division of responsibilities, and define  the cost matrix, spending profiles and manpower. Hence these  issues will also need to be ready for draft in autumn 2000.  iii) Update on funding from institutes  A minimum payment of 8 kSF/yr/institute to the Common Fund  has already been accepted by the CB. H-J.Hilke reported that  3 MSF into the Common Fund by 2000 would be necessary to meet  the magnet schedule.  H-J.Hilke reported that LHCb have immediate common  operational expenditures which must be met. It was agreed  that an Operations Fund be set up with a nominal payment of  5 kSF per year per country.  iv) Update on institute manpower  T.Nakada will soon request more precise details on manpower  from the institutes, as input to the manpower table being  constructed.  8) Report from the Technical Board/Management  H.J-Hilke introduced four recommendations made by the  Technical Board and which have been accepted and endorsed by  the Management. These recommendations were presented to the  CB for their endorsement.  i) Choice of calorimeter cell sizes  The Calorimeter Group and the Technical Board have recommended  the choice of 4*4 cm and 12*12 cm cell sizes for the ECAL, and  of 12*12 cm and 24*24 cm for the HCAL, corrected for  projectivity (although details of where to have the boundaries  between big and small still need to be finalized).  The CB unanimously endorsed this decision.  ii) Magnet - the choice of the 'warm racetrack' design.  H-J.Hilke emphasised the technical and cost arguments for  making this decision. The magnet group and the Technical  Board have recommended the choice of the 'warm racetrack'  design, which will now need to be optimised. He commented  that it was understood that the electricity cost of running  the magnet would not have to be paid by the experiment, but  rather by CERN.  The CB unanimously endorsed this decision.  iii) Level-0 Trigger latency  After careful evaluation by the Trigger Group, they have   recommended that a L0 latency of 4 microseconds be defined  for the experiment. The Technical Board have recommended  the decision, which has also been accepted by the management.  The CB unanimously endorsed this decision.  iv) Level-0 Trigger baseline    Following extensive discussions during the LHCb week,  the LHCb management has made a decision on the issue of  the L0 trigger baseline implementation. The LHCb management  fully agrees with the conclusion drawn by the trigger group  subcommittee and later by the Technical Board that the Bologna  and Orsay group should be invited to work for the trigger TDR  based on a joint calorimeter trigger implementation.  The management also believe that the Marseille group should  be invited to work toward the trigger TDR for the muon trigger  implementation, in close collaboration with the muon  subsystem group.   The CB endorsed this decision.        9) Matters arising from the Plenary Meeting  There were no matters arising, not covered by other items on  the agenda.  10) Revision of the LHCb Constitution    N.Harnew presented the need to make several changes to the  constitution. Many of these changes have already been agreed in  principle by the CB, but not yet formally updated into the  constitution. In addition to the changes which were discussed  earlier in the meeting, there are proposals to change the  following items :  o Terms of reference of the Technical Board and review procedures ;  o The Management and CB Chairperson's terms of office ;  o CB membership issues ;  o CB voting procedures ;  o Reporting of decisions.  N.Harnew pointed out that none of these changes involve  any change to the managerial structure of the collaboration.  After discussion it was agreed that N.Harnew would make  proposed changes in consultation with others, and would  circulate the draft version electronically. Reactions would  then be invited via Email. Because of a lack of time in the  main CB meeting, it was agreed to allocate a special Friday  afternoon session for discussion at Amsterdam. At this CB  meeting, there is the aim to ratifying the proposed changes.  11) Editorial policy  D.Websdale briefly reported on the activities of the ECFA-EPS  working group considering future publications policy. This has  concentrated on the issues prior to LHC data taking, and the  proposal to provide recognition to individuals during the  preparation phase of LHC (and other future) large  collaborations, by introducing a new type of publication (a  "technical paper") signed exclusively by the authors of the  work, refereed externally, and which would appear in the  electronic media of journal publishers.  A letter has been sent to several journal publishers, inviting  their comments to this proposal. The working group should report  to ECFA-EPS after the replies from publishers are received.  T.Nakada summarised the official LHCb position for publication  of LHCb notes, both internal and public.      o Anyone in the LHCb collaboration can produce an LHCb       internal note with an LHCb note number.     o If the author wishes the LHCb note to become public,       it has to be reviewed. It is the responsibility of       the subsystem coordinator to review it. The subsystem       coordinator can delegate this task to other(s), or       the Spokesperson, if he/she considers it appropriate.      o While the public notes can be accessed by everybody,       internal notes require the LHCb password for access.  The LHCb policy on technical papers submitted to refereed  journals, and LHCb conference proceedings was discussed.      o If the technical papers do not refer to the LHCb        experiment, there is no control by the LHCb collaboration.      o If the technical papers refer to the LHCb experiment,        the manuscripts intended for publication must be shown        to the Spokesperson, who may ask for changes, or demand        that the LHCb experiment not be referred to.      o The Spokesperson can pass the technical paper onto an        Editorial Board if he/she feels it to be appropriate.   In relation to above, an Editorial Board will be set up in   the near future.   12) LHCb conference talks  The status of current conference talk assignments was  circulated. The web site for the LHCb conference speakers list is  http://lhcb.cern.ch/generalmanagement/speakersbureau/html/speakers.html     13) Any other business   The Collaboration Board looks forward to the details of the  arrangements for the forthcoming collaboration week in  Amsterdam. ____________________________________________________________________________                     Summary of Important Dates                      All meetings are at CERN unless otherwise indicated.  Dates of future LHCb weeks and Collaboration Board meetings   LHCb weeks 1998       Plenary meeting    Collaboration Board   13 Sep - 17 Sep 99  Amsterdam   16/17 Sep              16/17 Sep   29 Nov -  3 Dec 99               2/3 Dec               2 Dec  Dates of conveners/referees meetings    1999 : 7 July   (coordinators and referees)  LHCC Meetings  1999 : 7-8 July, 2-3 Sept, 20-21 Oct.  RRB meeting  1999: 25-26 Oct.