New Page 1

Subsystems

Search

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.