--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes of the LHCb Collaboration Board Meeting (CERN, May 10 2001) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minutes taken by P.Soler Present: E.Aslanides (CPPM Marseille), B. D'Almagne (LAL Orsay), A. Bay (Lausanne), T. Bowcock (Liverpool), N. Brook (Bristol), G.Carboni (Rome "Tor Vergata"), C. Coca (IFIN-HH Bucharest), M.Calvi (Milano), P.Campana (Frascati), S.Easo (RAL), M.Schulz (PI Heidelberg), R.Forty (CERN), L. Garrido(Barcelona), V.Gibson (Cambridge), V.Obratzov (Russia), N.Harnew (Oxford), H-J. Hilke * (CERN), U. Marconi (Bologna), G.Martellotti (Rome "La Sapienza"), C.Matteuzzi *(Milano), F. Muheim (Edinburgh), T.Nakada * (CERN), G. Passaleva (Firenze), P.Perret (Clermont-Ferrand), G. Polok (Cracow/Warsaw), V.Pugatch (INR Kiev),Y. Ranyuk (Kharkov), B.Saitta (Cagliari), M.Sannino (Genoa), M.Schmelling (MPI Heidelberg), P. Soler (Glasgow), O.Steinkamp (Zurich), I.Videau * (LAL Orsay), D.Websdale (Imperial College). * non-voting members 38 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) Discussion and designation of the next Technical Coordinator and matter concerning Resources Coordination. 4) Collaboration issues a) New collaborators b) Endorsement for appointing Olaf Steinkamp as Deputy Coordinator for the Inner Tracker subsystem. c) Editorial Board matters. d) Author list for Physics LHC-b notes. 5) Offline computing: discussion on Hoffmann Review conclusions 6) Feedback from LHCC and matters arising 7) Report from the Management on Technical Issues -approval of muon TDR -approval of VELO TDR 8) Financial matters - Common Fund contributions - Maintenance and Operation 9) Update of the MoU signatures 10) MoU for DELPHI exhibition in pit 8 11) Matters arising from the Plenary Meeting 12) Any other business Chairperson's Introduction ------------------------------- Apologies had been received from : Brazilian Institutes, Dresden. All Russian groups have requested to be represented by only one voice : Vladimir Obratzov will be their representative. 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 List of participating collaborators from Novosibirsk has been received. 3) Discussion and designation of the next Technical Coordinator and matter concerning Resources Coordination. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The term of Hans-Jurgen Hilke as Technical Coordinator comes to an end in June 2002. Because of his retirement he cannot stand for another 3 years term; so a successor has to be found. The profile expected of a technical coordinator is: o Experience in building large detectors; o Experience in technical coordination; o Good knowledge of CERN and its procedures; o Potential to stay until LHCb is well into operation (minimum 6 years); o The appointment has to be agreed with CERN management and should be a CERN employee. A search within the collaboration was commenced but any potential candidates would have impinged on sub-detector progress. A search outside LHCb was carried out and the following candidates are proposed: o Werner Wizeling to take over as Technical Coordinator from 1 July 2002. His profile includes construction of the ALEPH TPC and Deputy Technical Coordinator to Mike Price at ATLAS. He will be on sabbatical until February 2002 so he could commence activities on LHCb from March 2002 onwards. o Alasdair Smith to collaborate with Hans Juergen on the management of resources from summer 2001 and to take over the task of Resource Coordinator from October 2001 (after Resource Review Board meeting). He has already carried out this task as TC of OPAL and will be available when dismantling of OPAL finishes in June 2001. Questions to candidates: o Time available for LHCb? Werner responded that he didn't have any ATLAS commitments beyond February 2002. Alasdair responded that after dismantling of OPAL (June 2001), he could devote 100% of time to LHCb. o Why did Werner change from ATLAS? It was a difficult decisision but he felt that his competences would be better used as LHCb rather than ATLAS and he considered this to be an exciting challenge. Discussion after candidates left the room: o Werner impressed his colleagues at ALEPH and at ATLAS. o Alasdair has performed a very good job at OPAL. He is a calm and consistent worker, with experience in financial matters (he is secretary of the LEP Finances Review Committee (FRC)). o Discussions between the two candidates suggest that they will work very well together. o The mandate would be initially for 3 years but would have a continuous commitment at least until the detector installation is finalised in 2006. o Since there are two jobs, there should be clear demarcation lines. A discussion ensued on whether the Resource Coordinator should be a new member of the management structure to be endorsed by a change in the constitution or whether it is simply a delegation of responsibilities from the Technical Coordinator. Should the Resource coordinator be a member of the Technical Board? The discussion showed arguments in favour of both options. o The sequence of events for appointing them was re-emphasized: 1. Endorsement of candidates. 2. Delegation of financial responsibilities to Alasdair Smith (Resources Coordinator) in October 2001. 3. Werner Wizeling is appointed Deputy Technical Coordinator in March 2002 and succeeds Hans-Juergen Hilke as Technical Coordinator in July 2002. ***Both candidates were endorsed by the Collaboration Board and the above sequence of events was ratified. Any discussion about a possible change in the constitution is deferred to a future Collaboration Board meeting. 4) Collaboration issues ----------------------- a) New collaborators Application of CEFET Parana as technical associate with UF Rio de Janeiro as sponsoring institute: this proposal was not put forward to the Collaboration Board because of the uncertainty in funding situation in Brazil Once the situation is clarified, CEFET Parana may apply as technical associate. b) Endorsement for appointing Olaf Steinkamp as Deputy Coordinator for the Inner Tracker subsystem (Olaf exits the room): Olaf Steinkamp was proposed as Deputy Coordinator by all groups in the Inner Tracker. *** The Collaboration Board endorsed the appointment. c) Editorial Board matters. --------------------------- New policy on making physics notes public: It is proposed to change the LHCb publication policy by adding the following clause: Public LHCb Note on physics. The Editorial Board reviews the LHCb physics note requested to become a public note. The author of this note should make this request to the Physics Coordinator who will submit the note to the board chairperson for review. The Physics Coordinator participates in the review process. ***This proposal was endorsed by the Collaboration Board. ACTION: T. Nakada will also change the "How to make an LHCb note" instructions and merge it with the LHCb publication policy to include this proposal. d) Author list for Physics LHC-b notes. -------------------------------------- The following authorship policy was proposed for LHCb: The LHCb standard author list consists of PhD students, PhD physicists and engineers who have been registered as a member of the LHCb collaboration at least for six months. A given author will be removed from the list, in agrement with his/her institute leader, one year after leaving the Collaboration. Within this period of one year, a footnote will be associated with his/her name mentioning "Now at ". The author list for each given publication will be based on this standard list with possible additions specific to each particular publication. The list will be sent to the institute leaders for approval prior to the submission of that particular document. ACTION: T. Nakada The previous policy should be modified to change: a) "group leader" for "institute leader", b) to include the spokesperson in the approval of extra authors, as proposed by the group leader. The proposal shall be re-circulated and agreed by mail. 5) Offline computing: discussion on Hoffmann Review conclusions --------------------------------------------------------------- Ioana Videau presented some of the conclusions that arose out of the Hoffmann review on computing. o A MoU on computing is expected for all LHC experiments by 2003. o It was identified that there is a lack of manpower in all LHC experiments for core software activities (see John Harvey's talk at Plenary meeting). o Software maintenance agreements need to be put in place prior to the computing MoU and these need to be monitored by the Resource Review Board. There are three possibilities: 1. Interim MoU (CMS has gone this route), with a detailed sharing of responsibilities (including number of scientists). 2. Bilateral software agreements (the model ATLAS used), where responsibilities are agreed through bilateral agreements within institutes (or countries). 3. Level of effort agreements, where each institute (or country) agrees to maintain a certain number of Full-Time-Equivalents (FTE) for core computing activities. ACTIONS: a. The discussion on these matters shall be held at the September CB meeting at Rio. All institutes (countries) should have a firm opinion on which of the three options should the collaboration follow. b. John Harvey and Ioana Videau should form a "Technical Computing Board", with all country representatives included, in which exchange of information and technical decisions on computing matters should take place. [N.A.P. A first meeting of this "Board" has taken place on June 8 and the minutes of this meeting are in attachment 2] 6) Feedback from LHCC and matters arising ---------------------------------------- Nakada and H-J.Hilke had made a summary in the Plenary meeting. 7) Report from the Management on Technical Issues ------------------------------------------------ In the Plenary Meeting Hans Juergen Hilke had presented a detailed summary of the Technical Board meeting. Some of the issues were recommended by the TB and supported by the management who asked the Collaboration Board to endorse them: 1. Muon TDR: The Muon TDR was in good shape, with one remaining worry being the design of the synchronisation chip (whether it is custom made or FPGA), its cost and complications. It was recommended that a) the submission should take place on 24 May; b) Jorgen Christiansen should organise a review of the timing alignment of the Muon detector in July, to address the issue of the synchronisation chip. 2. VELO TDR The VELO TDR was also in good shape, with the main worry being the amount of material. It was recommended that a) the submission should take place on 24 May; b) the group should continue the optimisation of the number of stations and check the electron efficiency beyond the TDR. 3. Engineering Design Review (EDR) for ECAL and HCAL: Referees were P. Bloch (ECAL) and M. Nessi (HCAL). The TB endorsed the conclusions in those reports and recommended: a) To start purchasing raw materials; b) To start production after a PRR confirming the availability of approved final construction drawings and of detailed quality control procedures validated on module-0 construction. 4. The decision to choose AL/Be beampipe as baseline was endorsed; strong interest was expressed in further optimization of flange/bellow transitions. 5. Tracking: a) Aim to have 10% occupancy of the Outer Tracker at luminosity 2x10^33 cm^2/s, which implies extending inner tracker. b) Decision to remove T11 and increase RICH-2 by 33 cm (9450< z < 11900 mm), if the interference with M1 can be resolved. Both recommendations were endorsed. The issue of y-layers for T1,T2 and T10 requires more studies. 6. Inner Tracker: the TB endorsed the recommandation made by the IT group to have the detector all made out of silicon. The TB urges the IT and OT groups to optimise the geometry and recommends that the extra cost of the silicon option should be borne by the whole collaboration. *** The Collaboration Board endorsed all these decisions, with the exception of the recommendation to support the increased cost of the Inner Tracker through the Common Fund (see point 6.). This debate is delayed until the IT has optimised its design and the costs are clearly shown. 7. Another point discussed in the TB meeting concerns the Engineering Data Management Systems (EDMS). This system will store essential information on the final detectors, which will include drawings in the CERN drawings database (CDD) and relevant technical notes. By 2002, all drawings should be in place. A general demonstration of the system is foreseen before the end of this year (Daniel Lacarrerre and Rolf Lindner); earlier training is possible on request. -approval of Muon and VELO TDRs A formal endorsement of the TDRs by the CB needs to take place. Since these were not completed at the time of the meeting, it was decided to take the following course of action: a) Management oversees the submission of the TDRs, which will only occur if management decides that there are no serious complaints to the submission. b) At the next CB meeting (Rio), the two TDRs will be recommended for formal approval by the CB. 8) Financial matters -------------------- - Common Fund contributions: o There was a positive response at the April RRB to the financial progress achieved by LHCb. o The 8 kSF/year per institute plus any larger Common Fund contributions received in 2001 should allow spending on the magnet and calorimeter projects to proceed. o Institutes not yet having done so, should send information on the foreseen funding profiles to Hans-Jurgen, both for the CF contributions and for the other investment funding. Hans-Jurgen will prepare a summary for the RRB. - Maintenance and Operation Budget The Director of Research Roger Cashmore has prepared a work plan in several steps to better define the M&O costs. o A CERN goup including the Ressources Coordinators of the LHC experiments should check once more the completeness of the list of M&O produced for the last RRB and give detailed information on manpower and materials cost . o A scrutiny group including outside experts should comment on this list o R. Cashmore will propose a scheme of sharing the costs and of rebates for Member States and NMS, according to their weighted contributions to LHC, and discuss this with RRB members in two special meetings in September. o R. Cashmore will prepare a new proposal for the RRB in October. He will also prepare a draft for a covering document for a MoU on M&O. 9) Update of the MoU signatures -------------------------------- o 85% of funding for the MoU has been signed by the different funding agencies. o The following funding agencies are yet to sign MoU: Brazil, China, Germany (BMBF),Poland, Spain, Ukraine. o There still remains 1.75 KCHF of under-funding for the experiment. 10) MoU for DELPHI exhibition in pit 8 -------------------------------------- o The MoU for the DELPHI exhibition in pit 8 was presented. o Management seeks permission to sign this MoU since the exhibition will not affect the construction of LHCb. In case of interference, there are provisions to be able to dismantle the exhibition, which includes availability of all tools needed to carry out this task. *** The Collaboration Board approved the signing of the DELPHI exhibition MoU. 11) Matters arising from the Plenary Meeting -------------------------------------------- All matters arising from the Plenary Meeting have been covered under point 7) 12) Any other business --------------------- There was no other business.