This is being provided in a rough-draft format. Live captioning, or Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), is provided by a human stenographer in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. There may be mistakes or untranslates due to inaudibility or the rapid speech pattern of the speaker.
Computing and Software Coordinating Panel For the Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical Society.
March 7, 2024.
>> IAN FISK: All right. Let's get started.
So two small items of business as an introduction. And then what I really want to do today was to talk about the document.
In terms of the two bits of small business, the first one, we're probably pretty close to ready to move this into Overleaf, and I will try to do that in the next day or so, and then send out an invite to the write document.
Because it will be, as we get -- this is mostly notes, and as we try to prepare something real, we should use the right tool.
And then the other item of business was: There had been a discussion by Peter Elmer about trying a face to face meeting at the end of the process.
And I think the easiest day is at the DPF -- is part of the DPF meeting, but I -- because of the overlap with the WLCG collaboration meeting and the international supercomputing, the Friday of that week, which would be May 17th, seems like potentially the most probable day. And I guess I wanted to get a sense of how many people, if anyone, would like to meet in person at the end of that week.
It's in Pittsburgh, I believe. So thumbs up?
>> Could you repeat the date?
>> IAN FISK: I believe it's May 17th, Friday. Tulika raised her hand. What's that?
>> I'm assuming that this would be still avoiding overlap of the actual DPF meeting, right?
>> I haven't seen a detailed agenda of the meeting. If it's on that Friday or not. Otherwise, we have to go into Saturday.
>> And it is on Friday, but I would have to look quickly to see what the actual agenda is. There are morning and plenaries and afternoon parallels, and I don't know whether the parallels extend to Friday.
>> Yeah, I would be interested, but I just wanted to make sure we avoid any overlap with the actual plenary sessions. I have to be on a panel there on Friday, so I was trying to understand when.
>> The time table for Friday, oh! Actually, there are two plenary sessions on Friday. I'm sorry. That's probably -- oh, but it's over by 1:00.
>> Yeah, that's what I thought.
>> So I would be proposing Friday afternoon.
>> Okay. Thanks.
>> And putting on something does not commit you to coming. It just sort of ...
There's another way. Is there anyone who is unable to go that are certain?
All right.
Well, all right.
Let's say tentatively that I will inquire as to whether we can get a room on that Friday afternoon in Pittsburgh, and circulate out some -- and people can register. Or whatever we -- say they're coming.
Okay.
Can people still hear me?
>> Yes.
>> We can.
>> Good. All right.
Now that was the first part.
The second part is, I attempted -- so the section on membership and committee makeup has a lot of comments, things to reconcile, and I will try to work through those in a way that tries to achieve consensus.
What I tried to do, I took the transcript minutes from the last two meetings, and tried to turn those into at least sort of more than an outline of the next several sections.
So communication and partnership, technical working groups, career development, and DEI.
And what I wanted to do, what I was hoping to do at this meeting, was to have people who agreed to be the volunteer members, take the text and improve it. And expand it and to make it -- to flesh it out, or at least acknowledge that it seems okay.
The transcripts were incredibly useful to sort of get the general concepts out.
But a couple of things.
So the communications and partnership. This was the goals in some sense, or enhance the partnerships for the -- with expertise exchange. So foster partnerships between universities, strategic links with external entities, enhance communication within the HEP community, and to facilitate workplaces, leverage connection, support for public and -- public data and software initiatives.
All the places that say actions could also be modified to say recommendation. If you look at the one that was done for CPAD, it's mostly recommendations. And I think that's a sort of way to give directions to the incoming committee. And I would be happy to change actions to recommendations.
But that was sort of the idea was there was objectives, which was to things like improve the communication between different programs, and then there were actions to propose how to do that.
One of the things that struck me a little bit is going through this, is that someplace in the document, we probably need to sit to -- at least propose a set of prioritize. If you tried to do all of the things we're proposing, it would take a lot of people a long time.
But the folks who are on the call ... let's see.
Jan I know is on the call. Not to punish people for showing up. Jan, can I put you down for goal through this text?
>> Okay. I guess I can't say no. [Laughing].
Yes, that's good.
>> IAN FISK: Okay. And then --
>> By when? I think we need deadlines. Otherwise it will never happen.
>> IAN FISK: Can I propose by next Thursday? We will not meet next Thursday, but we should have the text review next Thursday.
>> Having data is good. Yes.
>> IAN FISK: We're proposing next Thursday, and I will be -- that will commit me to, by the close of business Friday, having this into Overleaf as an outline, so people can start working from the final document.
>> So end of Thursday, beginning of Thursday?
>> IAN FISK: End of Thursday, west coast time.
>> Anywhere on earth. Good.
>> IAN FISK: All right. Okay. Technical working groups. I tried to encapsulate the discussion, which had a direction toward focused technical working groups rather than ope ended. Some of the things in the previous section about communication are sort of what I would have thought of as the open-ended working groups. There are general concepts that might be general interest and will go long running, and the technical working groups was to explore and finalize in a document, for a maximum of a year, limits of simultaneous number of them to probably five was the proposal.
And then technical topics will be chosen by the CPSC, awareness likely to evolve, and strategy, focus on people, actionable items, avoid duplication. And I tried to pull in the concept of DEI, because that was part of the discussion as well, which is that with all of these aspects, pay attention to an inclusive workforce in all of the technical advisory groups.
Matthew. Are you there?
>> I am. Yes.
>> IAN FISK: Can I put you on the hook for this?
>> Sure. End of day, and Thursday, March 14th. Right?
>> IAN FISK: Exactly.
>> MATTHEW: Okay. Sounds good.
>> IAN FISK: Excellent. And then again, in terms of career development, this section has sections that are pretty easy, which was the recognition of awards.
So again, actions probably should be replaced with recommendations.
But increase the overall ability and prestige is the objective. And part of that is that to create awards, it talks about the various career stages, post docs, junior faculty, and senior contributors.
The idea that we might want to have a specific set of awards for diversity in education, to encourage recognition of those efforts.
We talked a little bit about exploring the possibility of industry sponsorship, but with a real recognition, the primary -- the recognition as the primary goal, not giving people money.
And the idea that we would follow up in five years to evaluate the impact.
And then promote -- and then in terms of promoting career development, this is a little bit more complicated.
It's a much broader set of goals in terms of facilitating the discussions, recruiting, training, retention, organized workshops, networking, et cetera.
And addressing structural challenges. Increasing the number of positions, engaging with the agencies and universities to try to do this, advocate for changing in the hiring evaluation criteria, and collaborate with other disciplines.
This is the simplest, which is enable, enhance, and training education.
I guess people already commented to this. This text has only been in place for a short time.
And this was the concept of allowing -- finding ways to bring people back into your organization, because it helps with lots of things, including the diversity of the workforce.
And then comments ... yes. We can do all of these things.
And ...
Here we go.
So Gavin?
>> GAVIN: Yeah, hi there.
>> IAN FISK: Can I put you on the hook for this?
>> GAVIN: Sure can. Go for it. Spring break next week, so ...
>> IAN FISK: The 14th of May.
>> GAVIN: Sounds good.
>> IAN FISK: In terms of DEI, let's see.
So again, goals and objectives. This one ...
So increase diversity, promote equity, and enhance inclusion. And then there were set of actions associated with that, in terms of connecting a survey, and addressing this -- the barriers, promoting -- some of this stuff came out of the discussion directly, the concept of remote work and flexibility promotes a more diverse workforce.
And things like public data, and then the final idea was the idea that sort of DEI is a collective responsibility, where it's everyone's -- should solve.
And then the idea that we should be monitoring how well we're doing toward that.
Let's see.
The only volunteers were Maria and myself. Is Maria -- Maria, you're there?
>> I'm here.
>> Can I put you on the hook to do the edits of this section?
>> I see that you gave it a pass, so checking what we discussed went into your edits?
>> Yes.
>> Excellent. I can do that.
>> IAN FISK: And so I -- I tried to take the contents of the transcript and your notes to get -- but if I missed anything, please make sure it gets put back in. And it was -- and it was left out, it was not intentional by any means.
And if there's -- and ...
>> Yeah, maybe I could add something to the preamble that diversity in our field should be -- it's an opportunity, basically. But yeah.
>> IAN FISK: Yeah. Yeah. I tried to put that -- I -- better than I did. I tried to say that it was -- that there's a lower cost entry, and less specialized equipment that's needed and so there should be more opportunities for participation, but we're not seeing that. So -- [indistinct].
And --
>> My question was, and I did interrupt earlier, how good of a test do you want to see? I'm unclear between this and your relief, basically.
>> IAN FISK: My plan was to put the contents of the Google doc into Overleaf as sections, and then let people start editing from there.
And I would not suggest that people edit this document. I would suggest that people edit the Overleaf document, that I hope to have by tomorrow afternoon. Does that make sense?
>> No. So you're moving -- sorry. Try again. What do you want by next week? The details in Overleaf or --
>> Editing in Overleaf.
>> But can we make changes to these before it goes into the Overleaf?
>> Yes, you may. But if you -- yes, I -- yes. You certainly may do exactly that. When I put it, I will look to see what's there. When I put it in the Overleaf, I will -- I will probably freeze this for editing when I put it into Overleaf.
If you were able to edit, that means I haven't put it in Overleaf yet.
>> So that would be today.
>> Well, realistically, that would be tomorrow morning.
>> No, me editing it. Sorry.
>> IAN FISK: Yes, you --
>> Excellent, thank you.
>> IAN FISK: All right.
Let's see.
Now, that was sort of -- that's going over the document. Thank you for all who agreed to work.
The one question that I think needs to be answered is whether we think we're missing a large section.
Is there -- are there things that people think that we're not covering with these concepts that we need to, and whether -- there's some things that are probably left out of the existing sections. But if there's a large concept that we need to put in, speak now.
It doesn't mean that you can't speak later too. It just ... okay. Joel? I guess it's a question. Do you feel that we are missing something large?
>> JOEL BUTLER: Not yet. Let's put it that way. When -- when we see it all in -- in -- in the -- I mean, this is come online quickly. Right?
And so, you know, when we -- when we see it in Overleaf, I think it'll be easier to identify missing sections. I hope there aren't many.
>> IAN FISK: Okay.
Let's see.
That was the business I had for today.
Is there anything -- is there any other business people would like to discuss?
Seems not to be the case. Wait. No hands were raised or anything? I didn't miss anything?
>> PETER: Could I make one comment, please, Ian?
>> IAN FISK: Of course.
>> PETER: I think it's quite important to go back to the compath reports, and survey -- there was a diverse number of communities identified, both in the experimental computing directly, but also in the theoretical calculation and simulation portions on compath one and two, including cosmology and all sorts of other things. And I worry that we maybe are focusing on only a subset of the identified -- in compath, and maybe needling to make sure that we make reference to the reports to identify all the stakeholders.
>> IAN FISK: Okay.
>> PETER: -- things go through the gaps.
>> IAN FISK: Good thought.
I guess what I will propose to do, when we make the transition to Overleaf, I will also maybe put in the links to the compat report, so we can see, make sure that we are at least -- there's not a large percentage of community who haven't thought about it at all.
I -- just not -- I ...
>> Thank you.
>> IAN FISK: I hope I'm forgiven for not remembering all of the compath communities. There were quite ...
Okay. And Ruth? You're muted, I think.
>> RUTH: Oh, sorry, thanks. I was wondering what the plans are for revisiting the composition issue, which I think was sort of very much still up in the air.
>> IAN FISK: Okay.
The -- yeah. That's a good ... okay.
Well, we can -- see.
>> JOEL BUTLER: If you look, you'll see I added notes that said we should explicitly do that. Either with the group that wanted to work on it as a start, or the whole committee. But I think maybe that group that wanted to work on it is quite broad.
>> IAN FISK: Uh-huh.
>> JOEL BUTLER: So I --
>> RUTH: I'd like to join that group then.
>> JOEL BUTLER: Sure. I didn't notice that you weren't in it. So I ... but if you'll see, there's several comments that are down here, and I -- some of them were mine. So I know this has been a lively discussion.
>> IAN FISK: Let's see. How many of the people who are there -- Charles is here. Maria is here. Liz is here.
>> JOEL BUTLER: Liz is not here.
>> IAN FISK: Tulika, Joel, and Ruth is here. Verena is not here.
>> Steve is not here. He's quite --
>> IAN FISK: Yes, he had -- [overlapping voices].
>> Thank you for providing the adjectives I couldn't find. [Chuckling].
>> IAN FISK: -- all right. So given that not everyone here who might want to be represented is, I was going to propose we take some of this time to do that discussion but I think not everyone's here.
So maybe the thing to do is either to -- Joel, either to propose a subgroup, which is easy to do.
>> JOEL BUTLER: Yeah, a meeting of this group, along with anybody else that wants to join could be -- would be a virtual meeting. We might be able to get everybody together, if we're lucky.
>> IAN FISK: Yeah.
I think this is an important thing that sort of -- I think a lot of the other things that we talked through, there was general consensus on. I think this is the one that is probably going to need some hammering out.
>> PETER: This is why I was trying to raise the issue of let's make sure that we actually read and go back over the compath report, so the breadth of stakeholders is identified when we're having the discussion.
>> JOEL BUTLER: And the compack report doesn't actually embrace everybody that should be included, and we have to remember that we're -- we have a soft constraint, which is the total number of members of the committee.
At some level. Right?
>> When we go over the small experiments, we should understand that new experiments pop up. This is not, okay, we have represents of this, this experiment and we're done. The point is they're more agile.
>> JOEL BUTLER: But the thing is, we have to assume that the members of the committees, of the panel that we select, will not simply be advocates for their association naturally.
>> Exactly.
>> We can have one or two representatives of small experiments, and those people have to work hard to cover the whole scope of ...
>> Yeah.
>> ... experiments, and otherwise, we're doomed. Because everybody will want their own rep on it.
>> Exactly.
>> Quickly, I got to make this comment the first time it came up, and the new experiments coming up is a good example.
I've tried doing these with this lock organization, write out exactly the constituencies, and who -- which experiments they needed to have a seat, et cetera. And if we are overprescriptive, is literally going to Kell the computing panel. Because that's what happened with the -- organization.
I think that we should give guidelines to the exact, but not make them exactly. We need one person for each of these, otherwise it's not going to work.
It's a good idea. I tried it. It doesn't work. So yeah.
>> JOEL BUTLER: Thanks for that. You know, it's good to have real experience.
But what did we -- we said something about what we've wanted the overall size of this panel to be.
And it was a -- it was not a big number. Right?
>> IAN FISK: It says 15.
>> JOEL BUTLER: Yeah. So, you know, that tells us, given all the constituencies that we're talking about, and there maybe more stakeholders that we like to associated with, and maybe we haven't been, it's going to be difficult, and we, as I said, have to take the point of view that we're asking people to do this, to represent broad sectors of community in the context of having a broad view of the whole enterprise. Right?
So, you know, the challenge will be to get nominations for the -- for the people who can do that job, that kind of job, that has that perspective.
And then hopefully get them selected to the -- to the ultimate panel.
I don't think there's anything else we can do.
>> Yeah, I think that the right thing to say is something along the lines of: These are different peers. The big ones need to be represented. We want a balance of, you know, a small experiment, large experiments, experiments in theory. And we want some, you know, diversity on the panel.
And then we do the best that we can.
>> Yeah, I'm just -- [overlapping voices].
>> -- we're omitting things like accelerator community, and we don't want to come in with preconceived ideas, without going back to the compath reports.
>> Ruth, you had your hand up, and it went down. Was it covered?
>> I was sort of debating how important my comment was. [Chuckling].
>> Oh.
>> RUTH: Yeah, I agree in general with, like, minimally prescriptive -- I mean, the only thing I personally feel like is important to me, not be prescriptive, is on the theory experiment.
If you look at our group here, it's pretty experiment-heavy.
So I'm pretty sure that San's prescription, there aren't going to be a lot of theorists.
>> IAN FISK: There was -- there was ...
Steve had strong opinions for a higher ratio than that. I don't know the compromise rate.
Don't know where the two-thirds, one-third came from. Maybe it's in the comments.
>> RUTH: I think it's properly negotiation because I think it said one or two now, and now it says -- one or two before, and now it says five.
>> JOEL BUTLER: That's in red.
>> RUTH: What I'm trying to say, when one consider's Steve comment like a negotiating tactic, which is maybe a third is too much, but one or two is too few. Right? You always have to ask for more than you want?
>> IAN FISK: Right.
>> PETER: I think Steve's opening position was fifty-fifty. [Laughing]
>> RUTH: That's true. This is already toned down.
>> JOEL. BUTLER: So I guess we'll get through this by not staking out too many hard advocacy --
>> PETER: -- many unreasonable demands. But I would add that there are theoretical cosmology calculations as well, and exactly how the -- the theoretical calculation simulation part had particle beam accelerator modeling as a large community.
Which wouldn't fall directly under any one of the large experiments.
And also had the -- the theoretical cosmology calculation community, and I do want to us make sure that we don't start, you know, omitting groups who might not be directly represented in this panel.
>> JOEL BUTLER: So again, and I'm not trying to be difficult. But if you want to have a compact, small committee, then you can do that. You have to make sure that people do not -- are not -- are the kind of people that can represent or cover multiple areas.
And you might also want to consider something that we said we didn't want to do, I think fairly early in our discussion.
Which is you might wind up having some formal or at least -- let's even say trial focus groups or working groups or advisory groups that hit some of these things that can't be represented properly by one person or two.
We said we don't want to do that, but it's something to think about.
>> PETER: Perhaps it make sense to list the signed activities or domains that are being covered by the CPSC, whether or not the committee directly has members of those communities. Right?
So -- so the people who are being expected to be broad and cover a number of different areas, at least have a list of what those areas are.
>> JOEL BUTLER: Uh-huh.
>> I think that's a really good idea.
>> Yeah --
>> But guys, may I? We have different peers already. I don't think that this committee should defined different peers. Accelerators is a frontier. -- [overlapping voices].
>> I understand what you're saying, I'm disagreeing with you, respectfully.
And the other -- the other suggestion I would like to make for reasonableness, we can target, for example. A third of the committee will be theories. A third of the committee will be people from small experiments. And a third of the committee will be -- let's say women and gender minorities. And those are guidelines and they're not strict. We don't want the committee not to start because we only have four women instead, so we can say that's the -- [audio glitching] and I wouldn't want to put a range because then if we have six theorists who want to be on the committee, then we let them. If we have more than the target, then that's fine. It might make --
>> JOEL BUTLER: I think that the committee has to be successfully and broadly representative of the people who are doing computing in high energy physics and their close associates, and I just, you know, I'm not hearing anything that -- other than Maria Elena's first comment on flexibility, and the comment on what the CPSC should represent, I think these prescriptions are getting very odd to me.
So I think we should reserve the detailed discussion for a detailed meeting.
But I am surprised that we can't arrive at a point where we think that one -- let me put it this way.
In the collider community, CMS and Atlas are many, many kinds of subdisciplines of computing.
But I would hope that we could pick one or two people that would represent the entire ... even LHC program, because there's more than two experiments.
And that those people would be chosen for breadth and knowledge across all -- many aspects.
Because, you know, there's not one Atlas computing concern. There's not one CMS computing concern. And if we start writing down what they all are, we will find out that, you know, we need five or six from each of them, which is certainly ridiculous, and not going to happen.
So, you know, we need to develop a different viewpoint and write it down, I think.
And it's pretty close to what Maria Elena said, but we have to have people that can represent multiple aspects of multiple fields. Otherwise, we won't succeed.
>> Which I think goes back to Peter's statement. If you're -- we're supposed to be representing, like, a broader constituency. Some, like, just list of keep in mind these groups, I don't think that's a problem.
To me, that's totally separate from frontiers. Like ... but that's just me.
>> JOEL BUTLER: So frontiers are a little bit strange. If you mean frontiers as they apply to computing, that's one thing. If you mean frontiers broadly, you know, snow mass is over, in some sense, those things as organizations, it's not clear how they continue. They probably don't.
And within computing, these frontiers may be represented. But we have to make that happen. And that's -- that's another -- you know, cross-cut that has ten elements to it. Right?
>> CHARLES: Instead of choosing representatives by how they self-identify, isn't it more important to see how their needs are distinct? And make sure that we have a broad cross section of people who represent all the needs, whether it's from a DEI, or a large experiment or small experiment. How are their needs different between all of these different people and different tasks?
And you think there's a lot of information in the rest of the document which goes towards laying out what those different characteristics are.
And I think that might be a more useful starting place. Then saying, you know, small experiment, or Atlas, or whatever.
>> And Jan has been patient.
>> Yeah, same -- the means, I think, is important. What I wanted to bring in another aspect of -- another dimensions to this discussion.
Small experiments at, you know, hosted in a FERM lab are different from small experiments that may not have a host lab or are looking for future experiments, in terms of the support they get, the ability to address infrastructure needs and that kind of stuff.
So maybe rather than big small experiments, experiments with post support, or that kind of dimension.
>> IAN FISK: Maria?
>> Sorry. Old hand. My bad.
>> Tulika.
>> I agree with much of what Joel and Maria Elena. We cannot be very prescriptive. With my experience with DPF, trying to get nominations, it's really difficult.
And I think if we can talk about -- and in a way that we maybe mention the categories that we want balance representation across a few of these areas. As examples.
And including mentioning theory and experiment there.
And then I think as part of our role as community members, we have to make sure we nominate, and nominate enough people. I would not mention any ratios or numbers, I think, personally.
>> IAN FISK: I -- and I think we probably end up having another dedicated discussion on this.
I'm trying to, like, I'm trying to put together sort of Jan and Charles, along with the idea that if we had categories, should they be the technical, scientific categories that we're used to talking about, or things like lab versus university?
Or -- or place in Korea -- there's attributes there that are -- that we may find more -- that ...
We describe in the document a lot of different kinds of needs for people, but they're not associated with frontier, I guess, is the point. They're associated with career -- points in career, or -- and -- and the maker of this committee was chosen to be a good balance of lab and experiment. We didn't talk about necessarily, we -- the frontiers were included a little bit, but just to make sure that we weren't missing them completely. Ruth.
>> RUTH: I guess -- I mean, I agree. I certainly don't think that every subfield of theory or whatever should be represented either.
I mean, just to give you an idea of what I was thinking, like, for example I think there's a big difference between things like rodis and cosmology simulations where we do it in it house, versus Monte Carlo generators, where there are a lot of theorists involved in writing, but there are a lot of experimentalists who are actually using the code. I think of those as potentially different needs.
That's just trying to be more concrete, just to give people a sense of what I mean by ...
>> IAN FISK: Yeah, and I guess the -- and I would remind everyone, when we were talking about the makeup of the committee, that if you look at the things that committee is supposed to do, a lot of it is about the people, not necessarily about the technical issues.
There are some things about sort of what technical working groups might be chosen, but a lot of the things that are in there about how the people working in the field advance their careers or get trained or feel included.
And that's probably -- that's probably fairly universal, I think, in terms of the kind of -- those needs are probably -- not necessarily specific to the kind of calculations they're doing. And they -- we may find that there's a lot of commonality in that, and so people can represent each other, because the -- those -- the kinds of things that we're trying to address are covered.
>> RUTH: That's fair. I do see that point.
>> IAN FISK: Yeah. And I think that we just need to -- as we begin to think about the makeup of the committee, we also need to keep in mind the -- what the -- what the goal of the committee is too.
All right.
Are there other comments about this?
I'm tempted to call ...
I'm tempted to call a dedicated meeting on the membership topic. Unless people -- you get to vote.
Would you like to have a dedicated discussion just two weeks from today in our regular slot, or would you like to have a dedicated discussion on this a week from today in an off slot?
>> CHARLES: Next week is ACAT, so that will be a little bit of an inconvenience.
>> IAN FISK: Fair enough. I have to deal with that too, so that would be -- that's one vote against for me too.
All right. Shall ...
Okay. Given that the topic for two weeks from today is going to be going over what we have after people have edited, and looking at what's missing, it probably is time for a dedicated discussion. I would propose that we have a dedicated discussion on what will be Thursday, March 21st.
Is that agreed? Thumbs up? Perfect? All right.
Is that okay with the other people who need to be there?
All right. Very good. All right.
Is there any other business?
>> MATTHEW: Maybe just a -- ask one more time for those of us who are -- [indistinct] -- the initial summaries, just so I write this down, come Monday morning I don't have to email people to refresh my memory. The goal is to take everything we have in the Google doc, put it into the Overleaf as a summary, and flesh it out so we have a start. Correct?
>> IAN FISK: Yes, that's correct.
>> MATTHEW: Fantastic.
>> IAN FISK: All right. If there is no other business, you have your 14 minutes back.
Okay. Talk to you -- talk to you all in two weeks.
>> Thanks, everybody.
>> Thank you.
>> Bye.
This is being provided in a rough-draft format. Live captioning, or Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), is provided by a human stenographer in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. There may be mistakes or untranslates due to inaudibility or the rapid speech pattern of the speaker.