 |
|
|
| Home | Collaboration | Notes | Meetings | Subsystems | Search |
| ||||||||||
|
Summary of the LHCb Collaboration Board Meeting
(CERN, December 4th 1998) Minutes taken by F. Harris Present: B.Adeva (Santiago de Compostela), A.Bay (Lausanne), T.Bowcock (Liverpool), G.Carboni (Rome "Tor Vergata"), C.Coca (Bucharest), B.Cox (Virginia), D.Crosetto (Rice), R.Dzhelyadin (Serpukhov), R.Forty (CERN), A.Golutvin (ITEP, Moscow), A.Halley (Glasgow), N.Harnew * (Oxford), F.Harris (Oxford), H-J.Hilke * (CERN), B.Jean-Marie (LAL Orsay), T.Ketel (Free Univ. Amsterdam), K.Konigsmann (Freiburg), L.Kravchuk (INR Moscow), R.Le Gac (CPPM Marseille), T.Lohse (Humboldt), B.Marechal (Rio de Janeiro), G.Martellotti (Rome "La Sapienza), C.Matteuzzi (Milano), T.Nakada * (CERN), P.Perret (Clemont-Ferrand), V.Pugatch (INR Kiev), Y.Ranyuk (Kharkov), W.Ruckstuhl (FOM), B.Saitta (Cagliari), M.Sannino (Genoa), M.Schmelling (MPI Heidelberg), N.Semprini-Cesari (Bologna), B.Spaan (Dresden), U.Straumann (U.Heidelberg), D.Websdale (Imperial College, London), S.Wotton (Cambridge), N.Zaitsev (Amsterdam). * non-voting members [34 institutes represented] Apologies: A.Vorobyov, N.-G. Yao. (E.Aslanides, P.Kooijman, J.Van den Brand sent other representatives). The meeting was chaired by N. Harnew. Agenda : 1) Approval of the agenda 2) Minutes of last meeting 2-1) Approval of minutes 2-2) Matters arising 3) Collaboration issues New collaborators : - University of Edinburgh - University of Barcelona - IHEP University of Heidelberg - Others 4) Feedback from referees, LHCC and matters arising 5) Proposals for elections of Spokesperson 6) Proposal to delay election vote of Technical Coordinator 7) Institute feedback to the Interim Memorandum of Understanding (IMoU) 8) Financial and manpower matters 8-1) Update on funding from institutes 8-2) Update on institute manpower 9) Technical Board 10) Plans for revision of the LHCb Constitution 11) Matters arising from the Plenary Meeting 12) LHCb conference talks - Membership of talks committee 13) Collaboration policy on GEANT4 14) Collaboration policy on LHCb publications 15) Any other business 15-1) Proposal for September 1999 LHCb meeting outside CERN 15-2) Communication of CB minutes/business to rest of collaboration 15-3) Collaboration Board Secretary 1) Approval of the Agenda The agenda was approved. 2) Minutes of the last meeting 2.1) Approval of the Minutes The minutes of the last meeting held on 18th September 1998 were approved. 2.2) Matters arising from the Minutes i) T.Nakada and N.Harnew have written to the Cagliari group (Italy) formally accepting them into the collaboration. The Cagliari CB representative (Gino Saitta) was welcomed to the meeting. 3) Collaboration issues New collaborators : - University of Edinburgh F.Mulheim presented the interests and structure of the Edinburgh group. The main interest of the Edinburgh group is with the RICH project. The CB was unanimous in accepting Edinburgh into the collaboration. N.Harnew and T.Nakada will write an acceptance letter to the group. *** ACTION *** T.Nakada and N.Harnew to write a letter of acceptance to the University of Edinburgh. [As a general rule, it was agreed to specify in the letters of acceptance to all new groups that final project responsibilities will not be assigned in the collaboration until around the time of the TDR's.] - University of Barcelona Ramon Miguel presented the case for Barcelona, with Lluis Garrido in attendance. The Barcelona group are interested in the Inner Tracker and the ECAL for LHCb, and are investigating the area in which they can contribute. The CB was unanimous in accepting the University of Barcelona into the collaboration. *** ACTION *** T.Nakada and N.Harnew to write a letter of acceptance to the University of Barcelona. - IHEP University of Heidelberg Volker Lindenstruth presented the aims and structure of the IHEP University of Heidelberg group. The IHEP University of Heidelberg group have a special interest in the Vertex Trigger for LHCb, and have also been looking at the implementation of the Track Trigger. The CB were unanimous in accepting the group to the collaboration. *** ACTION *** T.Nakada and N.Harnew to write a letter of acceptance to the IHEP University of Heidelberg. 4) Feedback from referees, LHCC and matters arising There will be a meeting of referees with T.Nakada and H-J.Hilke in January, and a full referees meeting in March. 5) Proposals for elections of Spokesperson N.Harnew circulated draft proposals, which were also sent to CB members by Email on 6/11/98. These proposals resulted from an extra-ordinary meeting on 22/10/98. The CB agreed the election procedures, and these are appended to these minutes. - Approval of role of election committee and membership : The role of the election committee was approved. The following were ratified to make up the committee : G.Carboni, J.Harvey, W.Hofmann, J.LeFrancois, and A.Vorobyov (N.Harnew chair). - Approval of length of term of office and CERN residency : It was agreed to revise the LHCb constitution as follows : 2.2 The LHC-B Management; Terms and conditions of appointment; Clause 3 : "The initial terms of office are up to the submission of the Technical Proposal (TP) + 1/2 year. This will cover the time up to the TP and subsequent approval phase with minimum disruption. Appointments will be made for two-year terms, with the possibility of re-election." To be replaced by : "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." Although the term is nominally for three years, it was agreed that candidates will not be discounted if they can only commit to two years. 2.2 The LHC-B Management; The Spokesperson; Clause 7 : "The Spokesperson is expected to spend at least 50% of time at CERN up to the Technical Proposal and be resident at CERN thereafter." To be replaced by : "The Spokesperson is expected to be resident at CERN." *** ACTION *** N.Harnew to make the necessary changes to the constitution. - Approval of voting procedure, quorum requirement and election majority. The voting procedure was agreed (and as appended to these minutes). The quorum and election majority requirements were agreed (and the same as specified in the LHCb constitution). There was agreement to adopt the procedure proposed by the CB Chairman following the extraordinary meeting (as circulated). The CB Chairperson will conduct the election. He will send a ballot paper to each institute, however Email replies will be accepted if the institute prefers this method. It was agreed to review the voting procedure for future Spokesperson elections, where ballots in CB meetings should be considered. In the case where two candidates end up with equal votes, it was agreed that the election process would need to be repeated. - Election timetable The timetable was agreed. The revised timetable is as below : 5th Dec 98 : The CB Chairman sends an Email request to the CB calling for Spokesperson nominations. 15th Dec 98 : Deadline for Spokesperson nominations. Election committee participates in discussions. 20th Jan 99 : Announcement of Spokesperson candidate list. 27th Jan 99 : Candidate list re-announced, voting starts. 11th Feb 99 : Voting deadline. 12th Feb 99 : Election result announced. 19th Feb 99 : The elected Spokesperson is ratified at the CB meeting. The starting date for the Spokesperson is announced; which is expected to be not later than 6 months after the election date. *** ACTION *** N.Harnew to start the Spokesperson election process with a call for nominations. 6) Proposal to delay election vote of Technical Coordinator It was agreed to delay the election of the Technical Coordinator for three months after the election of the Spokesperson. The election procedure will need to be formally agreed only after the Spokesperson election has been completed. The three-month delay avoids the possibility of two simultaneous management changes. 7) Institute feedback to the Interim Memorandum of Understanding (IMoU) H-J.Hilke reported that mid-March is the next time at which changes to the IMoU will need to be made, so comments should be forwarded to HJH well before that date. *** ACTION *** All : provide H-J.Hilke with comments to the IMoU where appropriate. 8) Financial and manpower matters 8-1) Update on funding from institutes H-J.Hilke reported there was no new information. Institutes should continue to provide up to date information when appropriate. *** ACTION *** All : provide H-J.Hilke with updated funding estimates. 8-2) Update on institute manpower N.Harnew reported that he has written letters to institutes who have not yet supplied manpower estimates. 9) Technical Board H-J.Hilke proposed that the TB should deal with matters of : . Standardisation, optimisation and safety. . Cost issues (contingencies, ceilings and reductions). . Special problem areas (resources, milestones and schedules). . Preparation of TDR's. . Preparation of decisions of options (and the review process). . General issues (installation, beampipe, magnet). H-J.Hilke proposed the following membership of the TB : . Spokesperson . Technical Coordinator (chair) . CB Chairperson . Sub-System Coordinators . Task force Coordinators . Test-Beam Coordinator Additional experts can be invited through the Technical Coordinator according to the agenda, and proposed by any TB member. The CB agreed the proposals for the remit and membership of the TB, as above. The issue was raised whether additional members should be added to the TB. It was agreed that additional members should not be added at this time, but could later be considered in relation to the review of the LHCb Constitution (see item 10 below). H-J. Hilke proposed the review procedure for major decisions : 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 (where the Management consists of the Spokesperson and Technical Coordinator), 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 Board discussions. o The recommendations of the Review Panel are discussed in the Technical Board, who further make a recommendation. 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 above proposal for the review procedure was endorsed by the Collaboration Board as an interim measure, until the review of the LHCb Constitution is finalized. 10) Plans for revision of the LHCb Constitution N.Harnew circulated first-draft proposals, which were also sent to CB members by Email on 17/11/98. N.Harnew reported that there was not universal consensus on these issues, for example relating to the membership and terms of reference of the proposed Management Board. Due to lack of time, it was agreed that this very important matter needed a special meeting of the CB. The morning of Wednesday January 20th was agreed. It was agreed that sub-system coordinators who were not themselves members of the CB were also invited to attend. The hope is to have a first draft of the revised constitution prepared for the 19th February CB meeting. 11) Matters arising from the Plenary Meeting The Chairman raised three items for discussion : a) The CB noted the calorimeter design modifications which are close to being a firm proposal. b) The MOEDAL experiment, and the presentation of the LoI to the LHCC open session in March was noted. c) The following points made made in the plenary meeting with respect to the TOTEM experiment were endorsed by the CB : o The physics is good. o We reconfirm our position that there will be no objection to accommodate the TOTEM experiment at IP8 provided no interference to the LHCb experiment is found. o The two tracking planes inserted in the LHCb spectrometer for the total cross section measurement, in particular the one in front of the dipole magnet, may introduce serious difficulties. o We inform our position and concerns to the TOTEM collaboration and encourage further discussion. *** ACTION *** T.Nakada to write a letter to the TOTEM collaboration. 12) LHCb conference talks T.Nakada reported. The CB thanked the outgoing members of the Talks Committee (W Hoogland and S Conetti). The new membership was agreed by the CB : B.Adeva, G.Carboni, A.Halley. Technical talks will continue to be channeled through the subsystem coordinators. 13) Collaboration policy towards the GEANT4 MoU Following on from a long discussion in the plenary meeting, T.Nakada briefly clarified the implications of signing the GEANT4 MoU. It was agreed that the responsibility for making the final decision on whether and when to sign should pass to the Spokesman, Technical Coordinator and J.Harvey (as coordinator of computing activities). Given the concerns of several members regarding possible implications of signing, it was agreed that the collaboration have a week to express their opinions and concerns directly to T.Nakada and J.Harvey. After this time a decision will be make, and T.Nakada will inform the CB the outcome. 14) Collaboration policy on LHCb publications T.Nakada circulated a proposal from Bartels, Haidt and Zerwas concerning electronic publication of LHCb notes in EPH.C. The proposal was briefly discussed. There will be an ECFA group set up to discuss the general issues concerning publications from the LHC experiments. It was noted that issues of refereeing procedures will need to be properly addressed. This item will be put on the agenda of a future CB meeting for detailed discussion. 15) Any other business 15.1) Proposal for September 1999 LHCb meeting outside CERN W.Ruckstuhl outlined the proposal of NIKHEF to host the Sept. 13-17th 1999 LHCb meeting. The NIKHEF meeting was welcomed, and approved, by the CB. 15.2) Communication of CB minutes/business to rest of collaboration The Chairman expressed concern that CB minutes might not be being properly communicated to the collaboration by all CB representatives. It was agreed that CB minutes should be posted on the protected LHCb area of the WWW, with the Chairman taking responsibility for appropriate editing with respect to matters of confidentiality. *** ACTION *** N.Harnew to instigate a CB web site for posting minutes etc. 15.3) CB Secretary The CB Chair proposed that we appoint an official CB Secretary for minute taking. He suggested a term of office of 1 year. N.Harnew will gratefully receive volunteers/nominations. ____________________________________________________________________________ _ Summary of Important Dates All meetings are at CERN unless otherwise indicated. LHCC Meetings 1999 : 21-22 Jan, 25-26 Mar, 27-28 May, 8-9 July, 2-3 Sept, 4-5 Nov. Dates of future LHCb weeks and Collaboration Board meetings LHCb weeks 1998 Plenary meeting Collaboration Board 20 Jan 20 Jan, 9:00am 15 Feb - 19 Feb 99 18 Feb 19 Feb 7 Jun - 11 Jun 99 10 Jun 11 Jun 13 Sep - 17 Sep 99 16 Sep 17 Sep 29 Nov - 3 Dec 99 2 Dec 3 Dec Dates of conveners/referees meetings 1999 : 24 Mar (coordinators and referees) ____________________________________________________________________________ _ The CB attendees for the previous (18/9/98) meeting were as follows: B.Adeva (Santiago de Compostela), E.Aslanides (CPPM Marseille), A.Bay (Lausanne), C.Bosio (Rome "La Sapienza"), O.Boutianov (Espoo-Vataa), T.Bowcock (Liverpool), M.Bruschi (Bologna), G.Carboni (Rome "Tor Vergata"), C.Coca (Bucharest), R.Dzhelyadin (Serpukhov), R.Forty (CERN), A.Golutvin (ITEP, Moscow), E.Guschin (INR, Moscow), B.Govorkov (Lebedev PI, Moscow), N.Harnew * (Oxford), F.Harris (Oxford), H-J.Hilke * (CERN), B.Jean-Marie (LAL Orsay), C.Jiang (Beijing), T.Nakada * (CERN), M.Paganoni (Milano), L.de Paula (Rio de Janeiro), P.Perret (Clemont-Ferrand), W.Ruckstuhl (FOM), M.Sannino (Genoa), M.Schmelling (MPI Heidelberg), U.Straumann (U.Heidelberg), A.Vorobyov (NPI Gatchina), D.Websdale (Imperial College, London), S.Wotton (Cambridge). * non-voting members [27 institutes represented] ____________________________________________________________________________ _ Procedure for election of LHCb Spokesperson A) Role of Election Committee An election committee is set up. The committee is chaired by the CB Chairperson with five other members, nominated by him or her, and approved by the CB. [The following five people have been ratified to make up the election committee : G.Carboni, J.Harvey, W.Hofmann, J.LeFrancois, and A.Vorobyov. ] The Chairperson requests nominations for Spokesperson from the collaboration. Nominations should come via members of the CB (although the nominees themselves can be any member of the collaboration). The names of nominated candidates are passed on to the election committee. The election committee checks with those nominated that they are willing to stand. If an election committee member is nominated and is prepared to stand, that person will resign from the committee and a replacement on the committee will be found. 5th Dec 98 : The CB Chairman sends an Email request to the CB calling for Spokesperson nominations. It is the role of the election committee to consult with, and to disseminate information, to all CB members. The committee may also discuss their findings with individual candidates, who will have the opportunity to withdraw from the election process if the candidate considers it appropriate. The Chairperson does not directly enter into discussion with collaboration members about any nominated candidate. 15th Dec 98 : Deadline for Spokesperson nominations. Election committee participates in discussions. The CB Chairperson makes a preliminary consultation with the CERN Management about the nominees and provides feedback to the committee. The list of candidates that have been nominated and agree to stand is announced to the CB. The list must be circulated well enough in advance of the election so further nominations can be added if necessary (and checking of willingness to stand). The final list of candidates is announced. 20th Jan 99 : Announcement of Spokesperson candidate list. 27th Jan 99 : Candidate list re-announced, voting starts. B) Voting procedure The CB Chairperson conducts the election, which is done preserving secrecy by postal vote (a ballot paper will be sent to each institute), or by Email if the institute prefers. The election starts with the circulation of the names of nominated candidates. After consultation with the members of their institute, each CB member selects the names of candidates who they consider to be acceptable, and ranks them in order of preference. Conversely, any candidate the institute finds unacceptable is not ranked. Only candidates who are ranked as acceptable to the necessary majority of voting institutes are considered in the vote-counting process (ie. 2/3 of the institutes participating in the vote, and at least 50% of the quorum). Each institute has a single transferable vote. At the first step, the vote goes to the person they have ranked first. The candidate with the fewest votes (or candidates in the case of an equal vote) is then dropped from the election, and his or her votes are transferred to the next person in the institute's ranking that is still eligible, if any. This is repeated until a single candidate remains. If the process leads finally to two candidates with an equal vote, the election process would have to be restarted. Before the result is announced the CB Chairperson informs the CERN Management. 11th Feb 99 : Voting deadline. 12th Feb 99 : Election result announced. 19th Feb 99 : The elected Spokesperson is ratified at the CB meeting. The starting date for the Spokesperson is announced; which is expected to be not later than 6 months after the election date. C) Quorum and election-majority requirements Only those institutes which have attended at least one of the previous two CB meetings are entitled to vote, and these institutes are counted towards the quorum. An institute can declare that it does not wish to participate in the vote, and in this case the institute is not counted towards the quorum. An institute which is entitled to vote but abstains, is still counted towards the quorum. To be elected, the Spokesperson candidate requires a 2/3rd majority of those participating in the vote, and must be supported by at least 50% of the quorum. D) Length of term of office and residency The length of office for Spokesperson is for up to a three-year term, with the possibility of re-election. Only one re-election is possible in normal circumstances. [Although the term is nominally for three years, candidates will not be discounted if they can only commit to only two years.] The Spokesperson is expected to be resident at CERN. |