Subject: Contenance Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:29:43 +0200 (CEST) From: Friedrich DYDAK To: HARP-institute representatives -- Vladimir AMMOSOV , Marco APOLLONIO , Milla BALDO CEOLIN , Giles BARR , Alain BLONDEL , Maurizio BONESINI , Chris BOOTH , Stepan BUNYATOV , Craig BUTTAR , Maria Gabriella CATANESI , Enrico Di CAPUA , Ubaldo DORE , Jacques DUMARCHEZ , Friedrich DYDAK , Rob EDGECOCK , Ugo GASTALDI , Simone GIANI , 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 , Georgij SHELKOV , Petar TEMNIKOV , Alexandre TOROPINE , Roumen TSENOV , Francois VANNUCCI CC: Alberto DE MIN , Gianrossano GIANNINI Dear colleagues: I lose my `contenance' for a few minutes. We worked for more than three years on design, construction, commissioning and data taking. We had many crisis situations to survive and serious problems to solve, which were considerably more critical than the lamentable situation in which we are today. The spokesperson was deeply involved in all phases, including the start-up of the software development, there was collegial discussion and problems were solved efficiently together as they came along. If the spokesperson were at the origin of today's situation: why had we never a situation like this before? why was there never a call for a Steering Committee? The spokesperson wants the same high-performance standards applied to analysis work as in previous phases of the experiment (although A. Blondel let the spokesperson know that we, especially the spokesperson, did a lousy job; the spokesperson took note of his opinion). There is no way to get the spokesperson to compromise on quality of work. It is significant that today's lamentable situation started two months ago when the spokesperson pointed out that our software, which is well organized and compiles flawlessly, nevertheless has inadequate performance for physics analysis, and progress is not what it could be. Rather than working conscientiously with the spokesperson to take corrective action, the Analysis Convenor felt it appropriate to insist in a totally uncompromising way on his perceived authority. People are as they are, no way to change them. The only freedom that a manager has is to create an atmosphere which brings the best out of people, or else have an atmosphere which brings the worst to the surface. No need to go any further, you understand. The Collaboration Board suggested reconciliation and compromise by accepting both positions as valid and in HARP's interest. This is an understandable and even reasonable position, but managerially doubtful, because it rests on the intrinsic will of both parties to compromise. The spokesperson expressed his readiness for compromise and went a long way toward this in his `Way Forward' message to the Collaboration Board. However, the prospect of being out-voted in the Steering Committee by the majority of S. Giani, J.J. Gomez Cadenas and J. Panman was and is unacceptable. The spokesperson considered it a fair compromise (i) to aim for consensus whenever possible, and (ii) only if a vote is unavoidable, the three ordinary members are those who vote. Also, it would have been managerial nonsense to hold the Analysis Convenor responsible for a preliminary physics analysis, a concept which he spoke against at several occasions. What evidence of readiness for compromise gave `the other side' since the Collaboration Board meeting of 24 March? Yet, the spokesperson takes note of the fact, expressed unambiguously by your voting, that he did not convince the great majority of you. So, the Analysis Convenor can continue with what you seem to believe is high-performance work for HARP. (The spokesperson, for himself only i.e. not publicly, will take the liberty of comparing progress and HARP's working atmosphere with what it could be if we had a good Analysis Convenor.) Let me suggest that you follow progress until the next Collaboration Meeting on 7 - 8 July by comparison with the plans set out by the Analysis Convenor himself on the HARP analysis page (-> Harp Forward Analysis Project [2003-updated: 18-02-03]). Now follow more personal remarks. I hope you took note of the fact that not a single one of the many inflammatory emails of the last two months was sent by me. My only three messages were the strictly confidential `State of HARP address' (in which I critisized the conduct of office of the Analysis Convenor), my `Way Forward' message, and this email which you just read, all addressed exclusively to the Collaboration Board. I am speechless of the kindergarten style which was exhibited by the waterfall of emails which were sent to an audience which is much wider than HARP. I feel deeply ashamed of the damage done to HARP by such irresponsible action. There is a difference between criticism and insult. In my criticism of the Analysis Convenor's conduct in office, I was careful to avoid insult. Rather, I addressed specific shortcomings and gave intentionally precise quotations such that an outsider has a chance to get his own picture. By contrast, some people seem to think that HARP's spokesperson can be used as punching ball. After 21 March, I was waiting silently more than one month for an apology or a defending reaction by somebody else. Interestingly, there was none which is telling. I refer specifically, but not exclusively, to A. Blondel's message to the Collaboration Board: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:25:00 +0100 From: Alain Blondel To: Friedrich DYDAK Cc: HARP-institute representatives Subject: Re: Advance copy of State of HARP address Friedrich, Friends, 1. I am in a state of shock. I have never, EVER!, seen anything like what is happening now in HARP in a particle physics experiment, and I have seen several. In almost 30 years and about twelve spokespersons I have never seen anyone of them losing dignity to the extent of entering in verbal/e-mail 'fist fights' with several of the collaboration members (including students). etc.etc. I request A. Blondel either to provide evidence that his insults are justified, or to withdraw his email and apologize. Until either action, A. Blondel has no voice which I can hear. A. Blondel loves to point out Geneva University's contributions to HARP and to insist on his `high stakes' in HARP. Not to be misunderstood: I value highly the significant contributions of Geneva University in terms of finances and personnel. However, I hope you appreciate that I never pointed out that I myself provided half of HARP's financial resources through CERN and that I could justifiably speak of much higher stakes in HARP. We better employ British fairness and not Spanish bullfighting style. Time to regain my `contenance'. See you again on 7 July. Sincerely, Friedrich