Present: Sara, Ines, Laura, Ina (part time), Poonam, Leo, Viktor, Alex, Frank, Young DUNE Plot Style task force (part time)
We talked about three topics:
Collaboration feedback to the Plot Style recommendations:
Jeremy walked us through the most salient feedback (see slides) received from the collaboration on the proposed plot style recommendations. Items that we spent a bit of time on:
- Location of the requisite labels (aka "watermarks"): opinions varied somewhat on the question of whether or not strictly to require these to be located inside plot boundaries (they are required to be present in any case). We ended up concluding that it may be suffice for this to be a (strong?) recommendation.
- Comments on the colour palette: apparently the most vehement criticism originated from people desiring to use more subtle colour palettes to convey similarity between different processes. We concluded that it should suffice to argue that on the one hand these are recommendations only and not requirements; but that on the other hand, if people want to use a different palette, they should be mindful of people with colour vision deficiencies.
- We agreed that it would be asking too much to require that plot styles as used for presentations (as opposed to papers) should be internally consistent.
- The task force will be dissolving itself, and the question is who will be responsible for the recommendations (and, equally importantly, the specific implementations). It was decided that the APB or the Physics Coordinators will take this on, and possibly request a new TF if this should be deemed necessary.
Institute reading:
Frank started with a reminder (see slides) of the ideas for improving the participation of DUNE members at the collaboration review stage of full-DUNE publications. The most important conclusion is that we ought to have enough (and up-to-date) information to implement various algorithms, with the help of the master XML file as used for each paper's author list. Frank has made a start coding the use of this.
Our discussion was mostly on algorithmic items:
- how many institutes per paper? Frank has a preference for 4
- how to account for the number of members (or authors) in each institute? The easiest may be to weight proportional to the number of authors, but no strong opinions existed, other than that the number of authors should matter
- how to interpret the opt-out period? A preference existed for institutes being able to opt out for some specified period of time (rather than just for a given paper), and that this should be based on availability rather than experience or affinity with a paper's topic; and that once that period is over, the institute will in fact be assigned a paper after that.
ARC mandate:
As part of the AOB round-table, we ended up discussing the case of one ongoing paper effort, where the ARC seems to be taking a rather more proactive role than usual. Given that there is no guidance in docdb-1115, this is formally within the ARC's mandate, but we decided that it might be undesirable. We talked about two aspects more in particular:
- focus on the Technical Note: it was felt that this, in general, ought not to be the primary focus of the ARC (but of course the ARC should not shy away from requesting that the relevant analysis items are properly documented in the TN);
- proactive versus reactive: it was felt by most (but not by all) that it should not be the ARC's task to determine whether or not an analysis described in a publication is optimal (that ought to have been covered in the Working Group); rather, establishing its correctness should suffice.
There are minutes attached to this event.
Show them.