R2
2-Dec-2004
16 November 2004, KEK
Present: Robert Aymar, Hesheng Chen, Jonathan Dorfan (by speaker phone), Brian Foster, Paul Grannis, Sachio Komamiya, David Miller, Won Namkung, Satoshi Ozaki, Roy Rubinstein (Secretary), Sasha Skrinsky, Maury Tigner (Chair), Yoji Totsuka, Albrecht Wagner, Mike Witherell
1. On behalf of the ILCSC, Maury Tigner thanked Yoji Totsuka for so successfully organizing the ILC Workshop and the ILCSC meeting on such very short notice.
2. Currently Carlos Garcia Canal is the ICFA "Other Countries" member on ILCSC. His term will end on 31 December 2004, and there is a tentative agreement to ask ICFA member Vinod Sahni (India) to become an ILCSC member at that time.
3. 1st ILC Workshop, and next steps for GDI
Maury Tigner commented that it was impressive to see the amount of work done prior to the Workshop, and the large direction change in fact and in spirit at the large labs since the ITRP recommendation. In the discussion it was felt that the Working Group structure of the Workshop, with one convenor per region, was very effective. By the Snowmass meeting (14-27 August 2005), in which the accelerator part will be designated ILC2, the basic CDR design parameters should be in place; at Snowmass, there should be clarification and finalization of items, with a first draft CDR written at Snowmass. A goal for a complete CDR would be the end of 2005. Hopefully the Central Team and GDE will be in place by then. It was agreed that Tigner will make arrangements for the second ILC accelerator workshop (ILC2) to be held at Snowmass.
There was discussion of the confusion evident among participants at the Town Meeting on the GDE organization chart shown by Satoshi Ozaki. The confusion arose because a working arrangement chart is different from a responsibilities chart; it is the latter which is in the Ozaki organization chart, not the former. It was agreed that clarification of the chart is needed to avoid confusion.
The current status of the Workshops and next steps was summarized by Albrecht Wagner, and given in Attachment I.
4. Funding Agencies Meeting
Robert Aymar and Mike Witherell reported on the funding agencies (FALC) meeting held at CERN on 17 September 2004. In addition to Canada, CERN, European and US representatives, as at previous meetings, there were also representatives of Japan and Korea. The meeting heard reports by Barry Barish on the ITRP report, and by Witherell on ICFA activities and its endorsement of the ITRP report.
FALC agreed to have future meetings in March 2005 (London) and October 2005 (Japan). There was agreement to set up a Resource Board, which will report to, and meet more frequently than, FALC. The Resource Board will not have decision-taking powers, and will be an interface between FALC and the ILC scientific leadership.
5. Global Science Forum Consultative Group on High Energy Physics
Brian Foster attended the Consultative Group meeting held at CERN on 20 October 2004, and reported there on ICFA activities. The Consultative Group decided to go out of existence. OECD did not want a group with no specific work to do, and there was a feeling that much of its work had been taken over by FALC. If another specific study was needed, the Global Science Forum could set up another similar group.
6. World-Wide Study
World-Wide Study (WWS) activities were reported by David Miller. The WWS had circulated a proposal (http://blueox.uoregon.edu/~lc/wwstudy/ORG_OF_GLOBAL_EXP_PROG.pdf ) for WWS Organizing Committee responsibilities. These included coordinating presentations of whole-detector studies leading eventually to TDRs, and coordinating with the Central Team on detector issues. Miller reported that the aim is for one workshop/region/year. Detector concept teams are forming from the bottom up, with three concepts at present. He gave timelines for detector progress, but noted that these will change if GDI milestone dates change.
The WWS will set up panels, with deadlines, for detector activities. They include a Detector R&D Panel, a Costing Panel, and a Machine/ Detector Interface Panel; there is discussion of a possible concept support group.
Miller commented that the WWS had made its proposal in response to the ILCSC's February 2004 request. The ILCSC endorsed the general approach as outlined by Miller. His presentation is given in Attachment II.
7. ILC MOU
A draft MOU had been circulated to ILCSC members prior to the meeting. Satoshi Ozaki led a discussion of the MOU, noting that it is not a legal contractual document. There were several suggested modifications, and Ozaki will send a revised version to ILCSC members for comment.
There was considerable discussion of who signs the document, and the steps necessary for it to come into effect. The conclusion was that when a core group of institutions sign (saying that they will contribute resources and will work with the Central Team towards a common goal), the MOU will become effective. Once the MOU is in existence, this core group can define the conditions for subsequent joiners. It was decided that the core group would be those labs currently represented on IlCSC, namely
Asia: IHEP/Beijing, KEK, PAL
Europe: BINP, CCLRC, CERN, DESY
North America: BNL, Fermilab, LEPP/Cornell, SLAC
Items still to be settled are the initial duration of the MOU (it is expected that extensions will be by mutual agreement), and a procedure for an institution to exit the MOU.
8. Central Team Site Search
Sachio Komamiya reported on activities of the site search committee. The Chair has formulated a set of three questions for the committee. A committee meeting was held on 5/6 November 2004, and missing information from the proposers is being sought. Komamiya's presentation is given in Attachment III.
9. Central Team Director Search
The director search committee met twice during ILC1, and discussed the essential qualifications of a director; it noted that the key criterion is leadership abilities. Thirteen very high quality candidates have been nominated by the regions, and the committee has decided that four are particularly well qualified. These four are now being contacted, and interviews of them are expected in December 2004. It is hoped that a recommendation for director will be made to ILCSC by its 10 February 2005 meeting. There was a discussion of a possible ILCSC telephone meeting prior to that date in order to consider a director recommendation.
The presentation of Grannis is in Attachment IV.
10. Resource Board
There was discussion on the need for, and the role of, a resource board for the early GDI stages. It was felt that such a board could not control funding itself; however, the Central Team Director needs to know what resources are available, and who he should talk to about resources in order to carry out his responsibilities. It was decided that this issue does not have to be resolved at this time.
11. CDR
Comments were made on what should be contained in the CDR. It was felt that the CDR should take the parameters subcommittee specifications, and define a facility which achieves them. It will be internal to the physics community, and is not intended for the funding agencies, and should not include a cost estimate. It should contain an estimate of the cost to get to a TDR, and should contain a work breakdown structure down to some level. It will be a baseline design, but alternative options should be mentioned in the event that some parameters cannot be met.
There was support for the idea of generating a baseline design document at Snowmass '05, although this would not yet be a CDR. Discussion of what should be in the CDR will continue.
12. Other Business
Maury Tigner will write a charge for Snowmass '05.
The question of how many superconducting test facilities there should be in the world was raised; the worry is that some of the current limited total world linear collider funds could be wasted if there is unnecessary duplication.
13. The next ILCSC meeting will be held on Thursday 10 February 2005 at TRIUMF.