Present: Deborah Harris, Michele Weber, Alysia Marino, Alexander Olshevskiy, Dan Dwyer, David Caratelli, Mike Kordosky, Lisa Koerner, Mitchell Soderberg, Pedro Ochoa-Ricoux, Tim Bolton, Zelimir Djurcic, Jane Nachtman , Steve Brice, Steve Manly, Andrew Mastbaum
Please see slides, only discussion points are listed here.
MOU Consensus Process:
Mike: I think it would be useful to include institutions who are contributing labor
Dan: while it’s true that the current version focuses on parties that are committing to deliver specific chunks of hardware. As we grow to production, then the testing component becomes important. we should be expanding.
Detector commissioning: both above ground and in the near hall…that’s a big effort, and the transition to operations. We should try to capture that so Dan can say it to the funding agencies. Contributing with personnel from the research teams.
Mike: for an NSF funded group that would really help us. we’re able to take on subaward tasks.
Don’t know where spares should live: Brice says that since you’re building spares, you usually have a buy-back scheme. you build the spares when you build the rest of the project.
For the international contributions you can include the spares, and they are just delivered.
Action item: Debbie to bug Dan and Michele to send out the MOU
Prototyping Task Force:
Task Force: we had a task force last year to descope the MATF but now since the Bern FSD Is also being descoped.
most of the work getting the LAr from Bern working in MATF is bureaucratic. Bern is not set up to do a FSD for several years.
technical challenges with charge and light readout: geopolitical situation in europe caused this…
cryo system: one valve that just couldn’t be delivered. plus a number of other small delays. the company doesn’t yet have the valves, and there’s just nothing we can do until those valves show up.
Pedro: we are happy with this link between physics coordination and the consortium.
Steve Manly: in slide 22, you see under Sand TMS “also report to their respective consortia”)
I can give you a little history: in the early stages with SAND’s involvement with the ND CDR, SAND ran everything very independently. we had trouble trying to figure out how we blended that into the CDR. so we tried to tied SAND into the physics organization structure.
Andy: in addition to the definition of the link: if there are specific concerns about prioritizing service for working on detector construction for high profile analyses: the consortium might want to use the link in different ways. have to make sure that the concerns are prioritized.
the prevailing strategy with respect to convenors: Pedro continues on in this role, and we find a second convenor, maybe someone prioritizing cross section analysis.
Michele: Does this separation make it worse? the conflict is there anyway.
It doesn’t feel right to only define Consortium only as technical.
Dan: 2x2 will in some way be an experiment in its own right, kind of like Argoneut.
for DUNE, it sits between the tightly coupled ProtoDUNE at CERN which have been executed through the collaboration at large but SBND has existed as an independent scientific organization. 2x2 seems to sit in between those two examples.
we do have to think carefully about how we organize the analyses.
priority of the analyses is going to have to come through the DUNE management.
need to proceed by consensus.
Steve Manly: how did the protodunes work? They were under the consortium for their physics paper were the consortia structures just technical?
Dan: there are multiple consortia involved with ProtoDUNE: remember there’s “APA consortia” “HV consortia”. ND-LAr is different, we are responsible for delivering a completely independent detector.
the 2x2 existed in advance of the ND-LAr consortium, right?
Manly: I understand why they want to have the analysis under the physics coordination. it is sort of semantics: everyone needs to be talking.
Steve: if the analysis and physics side of 2x2 were under the physics coordination, what is your fear?
There would have to be a lot analyses that are important for the technical side. I don’t see anybody in such an organization not giving importance to that. There’s a vulnerability with that, you have different people in charge of different things.
Dan: right now it’s a vague concern. things would move forward in the same fashion. but if we had a change in physics convenors or in the analysis lead, I could see paths diverging and that’s a concern.
thinking about the 2x2 as an experiment: we want to get the impactiful physics, as well as supporting the low level consortium design studies. the physics convenors are going to have a different priority: they want to get the DUNE TDR fixed. they will be focused on those studies that motivate and establish DUNE sensitivities. these two interests are not necessarily aligned.
important that the physics convenor and the consortium leads are not micromanaging: we just want to appoint a good 2x2 physics leader. our only real authority is to change the convenor.
will just have to happen through consensus