Subject: Request for HARP collaboration board agenda item Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 18:37:37 +0100 From: Alain Blondel Organization: Uni-Geneva To: Friedrich DYDAK CC: HARP-institute representatives -- Vladimir AMMOSOV , Marco APOLLONIO , Milla BALDO CEOLIN , Giles BARR , Maurizio BONESINI , Chris BOOTH , Stepan BUNYATOV , Craig BUTTAR , Maria Gabriella CATANESI , Georgij SHELKOV , Enrico Di CAPUA , Ubaldo DORE , Jacques DUMARCHEZ , Rob EDGECOCK , Ugo GASTALDI , Simone GIANI , Sergej GNINENKO , Juan Jose GOMEZ CADENAS , Claus GOESSLING , Ghislain GREGOIRE , Vladimir GRICHINE , Alberto GUGLIELMI , Dimitar KOLEV , Lucie LINSSEN , Maria Teresa MUCIACCIA , Domizia ORESTANO , Vittorio PALLADINO , Jaap PANMAN , Fernanda PASTORE , Petar TEMNIKOV , Roumen TSENOV , Francois VANNUCCI , Kai ZUBER Dear Friedrich, dear colleagues, about 9 month ago (CB of June 10 2002) we have set up a structure for the analysis of HARP data. After a few teething problems, this structure now seems to be operating, with regular meetings for which agendas are known in advance and care taken to ensure communication with institutes abroad. Although it appears that there are considerable difficulties in reaching a satisfactory state for calibrations and alignment of the detector, the system seems to be building up to ensure a solid platform of understanding of the detector (and related software) which is essential to reach the original goals of the experiment, i.e. high quality data for neutrino factory design and atmospheric flux calculations. Meanwhile we have realized how precious these data will be for many other applications ranging from calibration of neutrino flux for existing experiments (miniboone, K2K), solving problems for previous experiments (LSND), and providing data for hadronic simulation codes to be used for LHC, space applications etc... There will be many more difficulties before we can safely deliver these data, and this will require a coherent effort from as many hands as possible. I think it would be good, at the next collaboration board, to review the situation to -- assess where we stand and the needs in manpower -- express constructive criticism to improve the present organization if needed -- discuss a commonly agreed road map towards a state in which physics results can be reliably obtained In addition I would suggest that we discuss and agree on the procedures to be followed for decision making. This is important now in defining the aforementioned road map, and will become crucial when we discuss which results should be presented at conferences, published etc... As food for thought, let me mention how such things were handled in collaborations I have been involved with. (This is only to start a discussion) -- Important strategic decisions (such as priority for analysis or publication) should be taken preferably at the analysis meeting, discussion be announced ahead of time and the arguments should be submitted in advance. (preferably as a note). This way we could make decisions communally and feel all committed to them. The decision should be summarized and communicated to all in the collaboration. In case some crucial players could not be present, the decision should be conditional to their explicit approval (especially if they needed to produce work for it!). -- For collaboration meetings it is useful to reserve a well announced special time, chaired by the analysis coordinator, to be the forum for such decisions. -- I always found more appropriate and practical that the minutes of such meetings be written by a different person than the chair (especially if the chair him/herself is at the origin of a proposal!). with kind regards, Alain --------------------------------------------------------------------- Alain Blondel Alain Blondel Cellular: +41-79-201-4058 Fax: +41-22-767-94-25 Home: +33-4-50-40-78-70 Work: +41-22-767-58-27 Additional Information: Last Name Blondel First Name Alain Version 2.1