--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes of the LHCb Collaboration Board Meeting (Ilha de Itacuruca, Rio de Janeiro, 21 September 2001) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes taken by P.Soler Present: B. Adeva (Santiago de Compostela), E.Aslanides (CPPM Marseille), I. Bediaga (CBPF, Rio de Janeiro), W. Baldini (Ferrara), N. Brook (Bristol), O. Callot (LAL, Orsay), G.Carboni (Rome "Tor Vergata"), C. Coca (IFIN-HH Bucharest), G. Collazuol (Firenze), P. Dornan (Imperial College London), S.Easo (RAL), R.Forty (CERN), T. Glebe (MPI Heidelberg), N.Harnew (Oxford), R. Hierck (NIKHEF), H-J. Hilke* (CERN), C. Jones (Cambridge), B. Marechal (UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro), G.Martellotti (Rome "La Sapienza"), C.Matteuzzi* (Milano), F. Muheim (Edinburgh), T.Nakada* (CERN), V. Obraztsov (Russia), C. Parkes (Liverpool), P.Perret (Clermont-Ferrand), G. Polok (Cracow/Warsaw), M.Sannino (Genoa), O. Schneider (Lausanne), P. Soler (Glasgow), O.Steinkamp (Zurich), U. Uwer (U. Heidelberg), A. Walsch (Kirchoff Inst Physics, Heidelberg). * non-voting members 29 voting members, quorum needed is 26 votes. [30 institutes represented] The meeting was chaired by Clara Matteuzzi Agenda ----------- 1) Approval of the agenda 2) Minutes of last meeting i) Approval of minutes ii) Matters arising 3) Collaboration issues a) New collaborators - Application of LAPP (Annecy, France), See attached document #1 4) Computing: discussion and endorsement of the Resolution on Core Computing (see attached document #2) 5) LHCb detector: material budget and performances 6) Report from the Management on Technical Issues - approval of muon TDR - approval of VELO TDR - discussion on OT TDR - other items 7) Financial Matters - Maintenance and Operation Funds: * costs estimate * Memorandum of Understanding - Status of the MoU signatures 8) Matters arising from the Plenary Meeting 9) Expiration of the spokesman mandate 10) Any other business * Vice-spokesperson end of mandate Chairperson's Introduction ------------------------------- Apologies had been received from : Bologna, Cagliari, Frascati, Kiev and Ioana Videau. Heidelberg reported a change of representative. All institutes should have received the following documents: a) Application of a group from LAPP (Annecy, France) to join LHCb and support from Bernard D'Almagne (LAL, ORsay). b) Resolution on Core Computing c) Updated text on Publication Policy. d) Outer Tracker Coordination e) Deputy Spokespersonship. 1) Approval of the agenda ----------------------------- The agenda was approved. 2) Minutes of the last meeting -------------------------------- i) Approval of minutes ---------------------- The minutes were approved. ii) Matters arising ------------------- o Clara Matteuzzi will make a recommendation to include in the constitution the function of resource coordinator by the next Collaboration Board meeting. o The new editorial policy that includes a standard list of authors with a waiting period of 6 months before being able to sign papers, plus the inclusion of additional authors following the recommandations of group leaders, was officially approved. 3) Collaboration issues ----------------------- a) New collaborators -------------------- Application of LAPP (Annecy, France) as a full collaborating institute. Bolek Pitrzyk represented the LAPP group wishing to join LHCb. The group consists of 4 physicists with the aim of working on the development of the Calorimeter Read-Out Processor (CROP) electronics. The group had originally worked on ALEPH and can commence its contribution to LHCb immediately, while finishing their involvement in ALEPH analysis (to be finished by the Moriond workshops next year). The group does not have direct experience with electronics design but has a strong support from technical staff at LAPP, and has secured financing from the lab to develop the CROP electronics. It must be noted that, even though a new french lab has joined the collaboration, the cdontribution from IN2P3 will remain the same. An internal LAPP committee strongly supports the participation of this group in LHCb and the other LHCb French institutes (as expressed in B. D'Almagne's letter) endorse the participation of LAPP. Other ALEPH colleagues concurred that the group would also add strong analysis skills. *** The Collaboration Board unanimously accepted the participation of LAPP, Annecy, in LHCb. b) CEFET Parana as Technical Associate (IRBJ, Rio de Janeiro, as host). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The discussion of the inclusion of CEFET, Parana, as a Technical Associate with IRBJ as host institution was postponed once more until the Brazilian financial situation is clarified. B. Marechal also insisted that it might add an extra source of funding to the Brazilian bid. At the next Collaboration Board the status will be reexamined. 4) Computing: discussion and endorsement of the Resolution on Core Computing (see attached document #2; John Harvey invited to present the document). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o A computing Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is not expected until 2003. A committee representing 10-11 participating countries in LHCb met twice to decide how to address the manpower problem in core computing until the MoU is signed. o The document on Core Computing that needs to be endorsed by the Collaboration Board is the result of these meetings. Each institute or country should undertake certain projects in core computing (identified in the appendix of this document) until the manpower shortage of 22 Full-time equivalents (FTE) is filled. o These computing agreements will have deliverables and a well-defined schedule and will be monitored by the Collaboration Board and the CERN Research Review Board (RRB). o Agreements between the Collaboration Board and individual institutes or countries (represented by their funding agencies or the institutes themselves) to fill these posts need to be signed and endorsed by the Collaboration Board. The timescale of these agreements is urgent. The initiative on filling these posts is up to the individual institutes but also John Harvey would take initiative in case some posts are not filled. o The agreements should only cover core computing and software frameworks with well defined deliverables and not physics analysis or event models, since it is deemed that this is the collective responsibility of the collaboration. ***The Core Computing document presented by John Harvey was unanimously endorsed by the Collaboration Board. ACTION: Institutes and countries should propose to the Collaboration Board taking on some of the projects identified in the Core Computing document. It is hoped that the first such agreements will be endorsed at the next Collaboration Board in December. 5) LHCb detector: material budget and performances -------------------------------------------------- T. Nakada made a summary of the material budget issues (LHCb-light) discussed in the Plenary meeting. The aim is to achieve a considerable reduction of material in front of RICH-2 by some modifications in the VELO and RICH-1 designs and removing several tracking stations by applying different tracking strategy relying more on VELO. The proposed plan for this is the following: 1. End 2001: Establish the tracking method for the reduced tracking stations and produce realistic designs for VELO and RICH-1 2. Spring 2002: Optimize the LHCb-light set-up and obtain a TDR level engineering design for VELO and RICH-1. Implement this new set-up; 3. Autumn 2002: Submit an addendum to the relevant LHCb TDRs to LHCC including performance figures for selected physics channels. o Relevant subdetector groups are working on the reduction of the material in their detector. o A tracking task force is working to validate the new strategy. Important issues are: Ks reconstruction Effect on the RICH performance o Trigger group is working on the issue of B field for the Level-1 trigger. Regular working meetings and monthly or bi-monthly general meeting will be held to coordinate the effort. T.Nakada convenes the over all work. ACTION: Tatsuya will set up a web page where the LHCb-light task force information will be displayed and will convene the corresponding meetings. 6) Report from the Management on Technical Issues ------------------------------------------------- - Approval of Muon TDR: the Collaboration Board endorsed the Muon TDR - Approval of VELO TDR: the Collaboration Board endorsed the VELO TDR - Discussion on OT TDR: o The majority of the Technical Board was in favour of presenting the OT TDR because: * it represents the final technology; * the number of stations is a detail that doesn't affect the technology choice; * it would cause a wrong negative impression on the OT status to the LHCC if the OT TDR were not submitted; * Bert Koene, Outer Tracker coordinator, retires; * the LHCC referees supported the submission of the OT TDR; * in the future an addendum to all TDRs will be submitted with the LHCb-light option. o The Collaboration Board endorsed the OT TDR and the decision to submit it. o New Coordinator for Outer Tracker: * Bert Koene retires after presenting the Outer Tracker TDR to the LHCC. * A proposal was made from the Outer Tracker groups to appoint Cristobal Padilla (CERN) the new Outer Tracker coordinator until the OT TDR is approved and project responsabilities are distributed so that the construction can commence. Despite having only recently joined the group, it was felt that Cristobal was the best choice since he had HERA-B tracker experience and communicated effectively with all members of the group. *** The recommedation to appoint Cristobal Padilla as OT coordinator was endorsed by the Collaboration Board. 7) Financial Matters -------------------- - Maintenance and Operation ( M&O) Costs: A reminder of the three categories of M&O items: Cat. A: Common Items (e.g.magnet). The M&O Fund will be for these items. Cat. B: Costs shared by the institutes responsible for the corresponding subsystems(as defined in the MoU). Cat. C : to be paid by CERN. Concerning Cat. A: The CB discussed the relative merits of cost sharing according to 'PhD scientists or equivalent' or to capital investment. The CB members present preferred the second choice. As Roger Cashmore strongly tends towards the first choice and will on this issue most listen to the funding agencies, the CB members are requested to transmit their opinion to their funding agencies. For the case the first choice would be requested from us, the CB felt that 'or equivalent' should mean high level engineers. Concerning Cat. C: the RRB will debate the splitting Cat.C versus Cat.(A+B) and Council will decide on the total charge falling on CERN. Steps in the RRB negotiations: 1. Resources Coordinators of the four experiments in conjunction with the Director of Research have tried to define complete lists of all costs, independent of their classification into Cat. A, B or C. The Director of Research then made a proposal for this classification. 2. A Scrutiny Group with members from CERN and from the Community has commented on the lists and tried to harmonize them amongst the 4 experiments. 3. Modified lists were prepared by the Ressources coordinators and sent to the Collaborations and the RRB. 4. In Pre-RRBs (Sept. 24th and 26th) and the RRB Oct. 22/23 these lists will be debated , as well as the sharing of costs and the rebates. 5. The RRB Oct 22/23 should approve the M&O budget for 2002 and the sharing scheme . ACTION: Each country representative should discuss with their Funding Agency the issues of Cat. C items , sharing and rebates. - Status of MoU signatures Missing signatures: Brazil, China, Germany- BMBF, Poland, Spain and Ukraine. - Common Fund: For those countries, which have not yet contributed major sums, invoices have been sent for the outstanding minimum contributions of 8kCHF/institute/year. The Management would like to thank those countries having paid more and to encourage further large early contributions. These will be important not only to guarantee our CF payments/commitments but also to smoothen the very sharp spending peak for subsystems in the years 2003-2005. 8) Matters arising from the Plenary Meeting -------------------------------------------- - Report from Technical Board delivered at Plenary Meeting by H.J. Hilke. 1. Outer Tracker TDR was submitted. An addendum will be submitted in the future to take into account any decisions on LHCb-light. 2. Next TDRs: * The TB endorsed the technical decisions on which the Online System TDR will be based. The TDR will be submitted at the end of 2001. * Trigger TDR will be submitted at the end of 2002. * Inner Tracker TDR is delayed to thye end of 2002. 3. The Detector Safety System (DSS) was presented to the TB (see also presentatio at the ECS meeting). It will use the same tools as the ECS system to generate level 1 & 2 alarms (non-fatal) and to cause actions from (fatal) level 3 alarms. 4. A study on particle backgrounds was reported by Gloria Corti (see plenary meeting) indicating that 8 charged particles, 1 muon and 4 neutrons per bunch crossing and per beam are expected in the worst case. Shielding walls to reduce this background will be needed. 5. A list of estimated M&O costs between 2002 and 2008 was presented. 6. Cryogenics layout: due to lack of space in the cavern, a "minimal boundary" between the cryogenics station and the LHCb detectors was adopted. This still causes clashes for some of the sub-detector installations but it was the only solution acceptable to both parties. *** The Collaboration Board endorsed the decisions of the Technical Board. - Feedback from LHCC: there was nothing to report. 9) Expiration of the spokesman's mandate -------------------------------------- - Tatsuya Nakada ends his mandate in February 2002 (he was elected 19 Februray 1998). - He is eligible for re-election since this was the first time he was elected under the rules of the LHCb constitution that only allows one re-election for each candidate in normal circumstances. *** The Collaboration Board agreed to follow the procedure decided on the 4th December 1998 (Clara will circulate the relevant part of the minutes of that meeting to refresh what was decided). ACTION: A search committee will be sought after by the chairperson of the Collaboration Board. The Collaboration Board will need to ratify the search committee. 10) Any other business ---------------------- - Vice-spokesperson end of mandate: * Ioana Videau will become the deputy EP division leader from 1 October, so she will not be able to continue as vice-spokesperson of LHCb, in charge of computing issues. * The spokesman proposes Bernard D'Alemagne to be vice-spokesperson from 1 October 2001 until February 2002 (end of Tatsuya's mandate) to help in the day-to-day management of LHCb, since Tatsuya will be very busy with issues related to the LHCb-light proposal. *** The Collaboration Board endorsed the nomination of Bernard D'alemagne as vice-spokesperson of LHCb. *** The Collaboration Board and the spokesman thanked Ioana Videau for her contributions to LHCb and wished her success in her new role as deputy EP division leader. - LHCb weeks for 2002: the following dates were proposed and approved 18-22 February 2002. 27-31 May 2002. 16-20 September 2002 (at Cambridge). 9-13 December 2002. - An offer from Zurich to host the external LHCb week in 2003 was received. A call for other proposals is made.