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
Task Force Plenary
April 18, 2024
>> IAN: Hey, Joel!
>> VERENA: Hi, everybody. Good afternoon.
>> MATTHEW: Hey, Verena.
>> IAN: Give people another moment. Otherwise ...
All right. We'll wait for one more minute, and then we'll get started.
There was only one person who wrote that they were not going to -- [indistinct] -- but that doesn't ...
Okay. Let's get started.
I'm going to share my screen to start. And then ...
Can people see my screen?
>> MATTHEW: We can.
>> IAN: Great. For today, we have two items to discuss.
The first one is scheduling. And the second one is the report.
So in terms of scheduling, we've been asked to present/seek feedback at the DPF-PHENO meeting, the week of May 13-17.
As a reminder to people, this was -- there was a proposal to have in -- [indistinct] -- which we chose not to do, but we have been asked to present.
This is currently a 30 to 45-minute slot, potentially question and answer format. I think this is fine. The only thing it does, it encourages us to have a circulatable draft by the end of the previous week. Our next meeting is May 2nd, and we would then need to have a draft that we can show by May 9.
And I don't think that's an impossible schedule. I think that's a very realistic schedule. But we -- it does inspire us to do that.
And so the idea being that we would have a mostly done draft to discuss next meeting, which we may -- May 2, and then we need to clean up, do it by May 9. This will not be the final copy, just the copy that we're willing to show to other people. And Joel would know better -- this came out of the DPF executive board.
My impression was, this was kept relevantly short. So there's a limit to the amount of -- well, could only go so wrong, I guess.
Let's see. And then that was the first bit.
And the second bit is the paper.
In the last two weeks I've made several edits, I will let you go over for feedback today. And then -- and -- yeah.
And then we should discuss all other business.
Are there any things that people like to bring up now before we switch to the paper?
Giordon.
>> GIORDON: Just a question, you said the draft to be circulated. To whom, and which date are we expected to circulate it on May 2 or 9?
>> IAN: It would be May 9 -- that's an interesting question to Joel. Joel, I guess we -- the idea of people want to ask questions, she should see it before, I'm assuming that we've been -- circulate to the executive board?
>> JOEL: Yeah if we make it public, we have to circulate it at least to the executive board for comment.
Let me make sure, though, that I understand.
We are talking about how we will put this paper out for the discussion at the DPF 24. Is that right?
>> IAN: Yes, that's right. And to whom. That's the --
>> JOEL: Right.
So in DPF 24, it's put out effectively to the people attending the conference, which last time I looked was closing in on 400 or something.
>> IAN: Right.
>> JOEL: So that's a pretty public -- at that point it's basically public, at least as draft. Right? Certainly isn't more than that.
And the DPF EC has to see it before then, I think, just to make sure that -- they don't have to accept everything that's in it, but they have to be convinced that there's nothing that they really can't swallow.
>> IAN: No actionable items.
>> JOEL: Right.
>> IAN: So I -- so in answer to Giordon's question, I think the idea is that on the ninth of May we would circulate a draft to the DPF executive board as a heads up. And then at the time of the meeting, we would -- whoever presents the work at the DPF PHENO meeting, the draft report would also be attached to that presentation section, but not circulated widely because we need feedback from the executive board.
Does that seem reasonable?
>> GIORDON: We don't present draft itself, and then state at the DPF PHENO, pulling out pieces of the draft that we know for sure will probably stay. And that might give us a little bit more flexibility, so we don't necessarily have to make the document public. But we can talk about pieces for sure in the document, and get some feedback from the community to reiterate before we put our final draft.
That way, maybe -- make some of the community members feel like they were a little bit included in the document as well.
>> IAN: Yeah. I think that's -- I think that's probably fine.
I think into that schedule, we probably still circulate something to the executive board. I think we would normally -- if we're going to talk about sections of the report in the public forum, they probably want the board manufactured beforehand, so we would circulate the functioning draft to the DEB, but have a more sort of -- yeah, I agree that having people feel like they had some input, broader input, that's a good forum to do it.
Joel, is that acceptable to you?
>> JOEL: I think that sounds quite good, actually.
>> IAN: All right. Okay. Is there anything else? Before we go through the paper.
All right.
So I'm going to -- I'm actually going to -- the pick -- the -- the -- things in the Overleaf, I am not a super Overleaf expert, so I actually put myself as change tracking on, so people could see what I had done. Anyone else who had like me to enable change tracking for themselves, I'm happy to do that. It seems to be done at the individual user level, not the whole document, unless you ask for that.
And just a couple of -- just to go through the things that I did, and I'm happy to undo any of them, but I -- I did some cleaning up with things.
The first one is ...
I changed a little bit sort of how to rate this document section, to soften it a bit in two ways. One, I kept the concept of objective rather than achievement because I wanted to be clear that given the things that are in the objective section, that they're unlikely to be achieved by this committee or any other committee, and it's -- like, completely achieved, and so it was seen as, like, the act of working on them was the success, rather than trying to -- than actually having sort of solved some of the problems that we're talking about.
And the second was -- was also just to -- introduced more softly the concept ... which is ...
Here.
So ...
I'm making sure there's actually -- it didn't get edited -- okay.
So basically the FTF is charged with -- [reading text rapidly] -- overtime, and initial appropriately for the makeup of the -- [reading text] the section that follow outline activities where the CPSC could contribute -- [reading text].
Each section has a set of high-level objectives which are seen as long-term, persistent challenges and I tried to make that consistent. In the document there were objectives which are persistent, and things that I think are unlikely to change, things that people should be worrying, thinking and trying to improve, and then there are -- each section has a set of high-level objectives, and there's a series of recommendations, ideas for the CPSC to make progress, and these are not an exhaustive list and may evolve as the committee matures. That's the first set.
And then the second is ... let's see.
This is probably the one that's going to require the most amount of discussion.
The governance section. I took a stab, and I'm happy to discuss it, but I think one of the things -- the feedback that I was getting in a couple of different places, we were being potentially too prescriptive in the makeup of the committee to the point it would be hard for people to make a committee of this size that was not constrained. And it occurred to me as a general idea, that there were things that were common among people, and there were things that were maybe -- specific to groups of people.
So for instance, I was -- we all work in software and computing, and the differences between someone who works in software and computing at the -- at the -- um -- energy frontier versus cosmology frontier from a standpoint of things that are important to them, career advancement or training or recognition or DEI are likely to have a lot of commonalities between them, far more so than the differences.
So I tried to outline the things that were -- there was probably, like, at the same time, someone who is at the early stage of their career may have a very different set of concerns of someone later or someone that's working at the lab where there is a -- a history of a persistent budget that supports people in software and computing, may have a very different feeling than a person who works at the university under a soft money contract. And also, from a standpoint of people who are -- who work in a part of the field that is highly desirable in city may have a different set of expectations than if someone who works more specific, and that doesn't mean that either of them are not important, but someone who works in machine learning and may make four times different may have different concerns than somebody else. Giordon, go ahead.
>> GIORDON: I was thinking about the common frontier. That throws me off a little bit. I kind of agree with you on some level, you know. Regarding whether you're working in instrumentation or theory or, you know, energy.
You are -- you're still -- but the other side of me is like, each of those different frontiers help different priorities -- [audio glitching].
And the energy frontier, I can see the higher priority, probably at least something more Python focused, more arm architecture focused, but somebody who's not there is not going to care about it as much. They will have slightly different priorities there.
So I guess I'm worried about the CPSC, they might not have to leave like -- [indistinct] -- theory, and restart -- I think we should check to make sure that we have the frontier centered somewhere --
>> IAN: Let's go back to this. The things that we're talking about the CPSC working on, tend to be larger community things. They're not necessarily -- some of them are things about training, but it's -- like, for instance, there's not as much specific -- someone works in Python, and someone works in something else.
And whether a person who works in Python might have, like, the same set of concerns about career development as someone else who works in something else. That being said, one of the things I was trying to outline, there was, for instance a difference in people would work at HPC versus other kinds of computing. And having people who work -- if you're working Las QCD you might have more in common with someone that's working in HBC calculation, than someone who might be working in large-scale distributing computing, in terms of what the -- so -- that's when I -- so when I was trying to divide these things up, these are the -- so -- I broke them into two categories.
We can discuss whether these are reasonable categories or not.
My two categories were things that were broad, community -- cross-cutting community concerns.
That -- that we need to make sure the viewpoints were, there was a balance of viewpoints, I put sources of support, meant whether you, like, were soft money or a lab or a university job. So you needed -- fuel that experiences in all of these because they all have differences of concern. Stage of career I thought it was important, including early career. And technical skills and expertise. And for me, that was that allowed us to -- we want to make sure -- people who had difference that -- technical skills.
And then also I put that we should put the -- that we're strongly encouraging choose members that represent and foster a diverse and inclusive environment. Farther, to ensure that the CPSC represents the interests of entire community, broad -- [reading text rapidly] -- ensure that over time, there's a balance in the following technical areas.
So lab, university -- experiment and theory -- and I put representative fractions, because it occurred to me that you didn't actually care what it was, as long as it was about the same number of people who were working in that or representative -- averaged over time. Representative from the major experiments, and representative from all mayor theoretical computational activities, on basically the frontier, and all the frontiers.
And so all -- all I did was -- was to -- I did two things.
One is that I tried to highlight what I thought were the common things where a person might want to have someone with a similar set of common experiences to them on the committee, to make sure that they're -- their needs were being met.
And then I included as a second set, sort of this idea that we need broad representation, but I introduced the concept that averaged over time. We might hit those, but we didn't need to hit them with every committee. And the CPSC is encouraged to keep statistics on the panel membership -- if there are areas that are systematically underrepresented. And now we get to discuss.
>> GIORDON: Another question. When you said, for example, experimental program, does that include experiments that do not yet exist, that are part of the what was the report.
>> IAN: I think they would, yeah. For instance, I'll give you one -- say things like the mule on collider as being an experimental program even though it does not yet formally exist.
>> GIORDON: We might want to maybe just make sure that that is not ... I don't know what the phrase is -- we should just be more explicit, saying current and future --
>> IAN: And future, that seems like -- because somehow, existing and nonexisting -- imagine experimental programs seems like -- existing -- future sounds good.
Joel, you had a lot -- you had many feelings on this section. Would you -- like -- is this better or worse? Or not -- or, you know, or --
>> JOEL: So, you know, my problem -- this -- I'm having -- [chuckling] -- some difficult with my network here.
So -- but we're talking about the -- this section on page -- I guess it's seven, right?
>> IAN: We're talking about -- and we're talking about the -- and in -- on your -- I don't know if everyone's Overleaf, you may have to hit recompile to you have the updated .pdf.
>> JOEL: I think I do, and what I wanted to say was, that I'm -- my original difficulty with this section was how to map it into a committee of modest size.
>> IAN: Right.
>> JOEL: Which people seem to want.
And you know, the -- I even questioned whether it should be as big as we have it, which is 15.
But I think this is a -- is a real progress in trying to frame what we mean by representation. And how we're trying to get a committee that -- a panel, eventually, people that have a certain breadth and depth in vision, and can avoid representing specific constituents.
So I like this language, because it kind of guides you, but it's not very -- it isn't overly prescriptive, I think.
So I -- I haven't -- you know, really thought through each bullet in detail, but I generally like the -- the idea.
>> IAN: Okay.
>> JOEL: -- of it.
>> IAN: And there's probably -- I would, like -- we may want to sort of tighten this a little bit.
Some of this is a bit sort of, like -- I -- I tend to have a more favorite style, and it may be too many words. But we can -- if people want to tether it down, that would be fine.
But the idea is that, like, if we -- with this, like, at all times, the committee should have people who come from a variety of sources, who have different stages of their careers and expertise.
But that shouldn't be too hard to do with a committee of 15. And make sure that we don't forget anybody, that we don't forget some of these things.
Someone who is in a very specific stage of their career may not have the same ability to see, like, the problems that are facing someone else in -- which is very different from sort of -- someone might be able to see the technology challenges of someone in a different frontier more clearly. And Liz, go ahead. You're muted. Liz?
>> LIZ: Sorry. I was muted. Could you scroll down to the last bullet? That just struck me as a little odd.
>> IAN: Which one?
>> LIZ: The representatives of all experimental frontiers.
So your frontiers in that part of the phrase, but then you have experiments when you talk about the small ones..
And that's a little jarring to me.
>> IAN: Okay.
>> LIZ: I guess -- I mean, I understand the -- the intention to make sure that small experiments are included.
But I -- in the way it's phrased, it's just a little odd.
>> IAN: I agree, and I think what we're going to do to fix that, we're going to say representatives from all currently and future major experiment programs, and representatives from small experiments, put it in bullet three, and simply say representatives from all experimental frontiers.
>> LIZ: Yeah. That sounds good.
>> IAN: Easy to fix.
Anybody else?
Okay. All right.
That's great.
So next section. Next -- go ahead.
>> MATTHEW: Sorry. I think Charles --
>> IAN: I didn't see your hand.
>> CHARLES: No worries. The last line. Should we explicitly request or -- to see --
>> IAN: I think that's -- let me -- that's also -- yes. We should put that -- and sometimes -- [indistinct] -- the idea keep this as -- expose them to the community for feedback, in some sense, judging -- it's weird that -- as written -- the committee judges their own result -- their own work, and saying that we're going to expose -- [overlapping voices].
>> JOEL: Let me understand a little of what you mean by that, where does this go?
>> IAN: The last line. The CPSC is encouraged to keep statistics on the panel membership and correct, if there are areas that are systematically under represented.
But the idea, keep statistics, and expose those and -- and expose -- there will be annual reports of this committee, and they should be exposed in the annual report.
>> JOEL: There will be an annual report and something more to the EC, and ... I -- I think that's all we need to do. I mean, exposing, the public, and commentary on individuals, right? And that has hazards.
>> IAN: For me, this statistics would not include names. This -- this would be some set of metrics that were used to say, yes, we had a representative from -- or whatever.
>> CHARLES: Why would it not have the names?
>> JOEL: They're public, but the criticism of individuals is fraught with difficulties. I'm just telling you. We tried to do this once again on this ethics committee, and it creates a lot of issues.
>> MATTHEW: So a follow-up question here then is: If we're -- I mean, this committee is not going to be vast. So if we're giving, like, summary break down on the individual -- on the representation, that seems like it will not significantly obscure the -- who these comments would be about. So not providing the names really do much?
>> IAN: You're right. And we can certainly provides the names or not. My vision of this had been, what happens in 15 years when there's been, like, five cycles of this committee.
>> MATTHEW: Yes, yes.
>> IAN: The names are somewhat a little bit less important than the fact that we had -- so what -- some of these things, if you have this many frontiers, averaged over time it worked out. But the important, you had a member of this frontier a fraction of the time, rather than this particular person. And I don't think there's anything secret about the names. It's just the value in the statistics is probably not the name necessarily but the fact that they were people at each of these, over the course of time, you had a -- a balance in representative committee.
Tulika.
>> TULIKA: I was going to say, many of our large collaborations, we have a selection process. And we end, the team people doing the selection have to report on the demographics, and both for that year, as well as averaged over a period.
So I think we're talking about something like that. And I like the idea that was mentioned. Maybe we should just explicitly write it in, that the CPSC should keep statistics and will include them in the annual report to the DPF DC, and that should be part of the report writing.
>> IAN: Joel.
>> JOEL: Following up on what Tulika said, we have some shared experience here.
It should keep statistics on panel membership, but we should write down the -- also should keep statistics on nominations. There's always a nomination process, and, you know, you can see trouble beginning to brew in the nomination process if the nominations aren't coming in for certain constituencies.
And then, you know, if the nominations are balanced and the result is not balanced, it can be several reasons for that. You have to investigate.
So I think that just adding the words statistics, you know, nominations and panel membership, or panel membership and nominations, is a big help. And that will presumably be a much larger and more statistically significant demographic, the pool actually.
>> IAN: Then you do -- now you are in the neighborhood of, like -- probably wouldn't give the names of the nomination -- of the nominees. Right?
>> JOEL: No, no. Just basically, I mean, we look at a lot of pie charts.
>> IAN: Yeah.
>> JOEL: But they are extremely revealing, frequently.
>> IAN: Okay. Yeah. I will add some text to this section in my notes.
Other section -- other things or can we move on?
Okay.
>> GIORDON: Quick question. When you're talking about having statistics for nominations of panel members, that's part of the DPF bylaws, or you have to state this for each committee you have under DPF or something like that?
>> IAN: I ... you were a little quiet for me, Giordon.
>> MATTHEW: His question, Giordon, if you don't mind me repeating, was, well, this make sense. Is this already covered under DPF by laws? And is it necessary for us to explicitly state it in the report, if so.
>> IAN: Okay. That's a question Tulika or Joel, are these things already covered? Tulika.
>> TULIKA: I don't remember every line of the bylaws. We don't see these pieces of information. So it's good to put it in. If it's there, it's not followed to that extent, Joel, do you remember?
>> JOEL: At the meeting yesterday with the EC, the issue came up about what DPF expects of us, and what they don't.
And it turns out that they are actually -- have a new protocol for committees under development, and it was sent to me. I'm not on the mailing list because it's not adopted yet.
But I looked at it, and actually, they don't constrain committees in detail. Of course, we are bound by their code of conduct. That's completely clear.
And their principles of DEI, that's also completely clear.
I don't think they have the detail that they need yet as Tulika said, to make sure that we get this information. And there currently won't have information on nominations, unless we join their process, which in general, hasn't been done. Although recently, I think we actually did something using their -- they have a process for dealing with fellowships for which there are nominations, many of them. And all kinds of other things.
But they haven't actually made those available to units of which DPF is one. And this is actually below that in the hierarchy.
So I think we should put things in that we know we need.
>> IAN: Okay.
>> JOEL: And this -- this does -- this is not going into the bylaws. A very tour statement will go into the bylaws.
So we can -- we'll have to cross that bridge pretty soon.
But I -- I think we do better to -- since it's not clear what it is that applies to us, and it may actually be almost nothing. We should put in what we need.
>> IAN: We will edit this sentence. All right.
Moving on section 3. In the section, I essentially didn't do very much, except to reorder a few things.
So I -- discussed the last meeting, I pulled the objectives to one section at the beginning and tried to put in a summary same time. We envision multiple objectives -- [reading text rapidly] -- and the ones down there got moved to here, and cleaned up a tiny bit. We're trying to encourage strategic partnership, research institutes, industry, and science communities, trying to improve over all internal communication between programs within a cross funding agencies, make the committee -- the panel a valuable resource for community -- community and if you said agencies through workshops, working grounds, consensus building, strengthening interactions with city, and benefit technology best practices, and advocate -- this one is a little bit of a more detailed objective. Advertise for support and development of public data and software repositories.
The one thing that I could use some help with, and this is one of the things I would like to ask of the -- I think Liz and Gavin are both on the call.
In these sections there is a descriptive paragraph and recommendations.
And there are for 3.1 and 3.2, 4, 5, and 6 don't have those. And I think just for, like, for -- for completeness, and also would be a little bit of descriptive paragraph about what we mean by increase -- enhancing communications within the HEP community would be useful, so I'm seeking volunteers to do that.
>> LIZ: Yeah, I could do something like that. I mean, as the first step.
>> IAN: Yeah, where -- great. All right.
So another -- otherwise, this is the same text as before, as -- as -- the people who were there contributed it, and so I think that -- and generally, I think the recommendations are very good, and they are -- [indistinct] -- recommendations rather than actions.
We probably -- if there's time today, we will discuss a little bit about sort of how many times we mentioned having an annual meeting. [Chuckling].
But I think that's an interesting discussion.
I have -- a more structural question in section 4, which is facilitate the establishment of technical working groups.
And the question -- is the question I posed to the committee is this.
Whether we see technical working groups, are they tools? Or are they an objective of their own?
And so if they are a tool, do we want to put them under communication as a tool? And if they're an independent objective that we think the panel should be pursuing, do we want to motivate that in a different way?
Because I think one of the things that I was going through the document that most of the -- DEI, career development, communications, have sort of a set of clear objectives that they have in mind for improving things.
Technical -- like, technical working groups at the moment reads as a tool. And we could either move it into the governance section as a place that the -- we think this is a way of expanding the reach of the committee, we can move it under the communication section as a tool, or we can remotivate it as something that has an independent objective. And I'm open for suggestions.
Joel.
>> JOEL: Yeah, so this is a question to you and to the group. There's a line here, I'm not sure what -- supposed we wanted to have a working group that would all write a report on what we had to do for the next generation of support for generators, or ... I don't know. Just think of something fairly specific.
And the goal is to sort of write a strategic plan of some kind. Now, of course that has a communication component.
But it also has kind of an -- you know, it's kind of an independent thing.
So not just communication. There's a definite technical dimension to it, right?
>> IAN: Right.
>> JOEL: So where would you put that?
>> IAN: Well, I guess two different -- if we want to, like, if we want to have an objective, which says create a structure which -- essentially create a structure which allows the writing of these reports, and the objective is create a structure that allows that -- that we can develop guidance to the agencies and the community in technical areas. That would be an objective. In which case it's not -- facilitate the -- [speaking very rapidly; indistinct] -- working groups, but facilitate a structure that allows you to -- to develop strategies in technical areas. In which case, that would be our objective. And then underneath that, the recommendation would be facilitate technical working groups. I think that would be a clean way to do this, that -- and I'm happy to rewrite it that way, if people think that's okay.
Because I think it's -- I think it's a valuable activity of the committee, develop strategy in the -- or at least develop strategy and community, put that in, Tulika's giving me thumbs-up and -- okay.
>> JOEL: I like it too.
>> IAN: Okay. All right.
>> MATTHEW: I think the other thing that phrasing it as tools does, we also talked about the concern of technical working groups taking on a life of their own and going on indefinitely, rather than being well-defined scoped, like, both in purview and -- and temporal duration.
>> IAN: Right.
>> MATTHEW: So that kind of also lends itself that way. That's another bonus.
>> IAN: Yeah. Because they -- the groups themselves are a tool inside of this thing about developing strategy and developing strategy hopefully by definition is fixed duration.
And focus.
All right. Very good.
And then the career development, I essentially -- it was the same issue. Communication.
I reordered a bit, and moved the objectives into career development. So the objectives were to increase the visibility and prestige of software and computing contributions -- [indistinct] -- campaign -- missing word -- some of our objectives were ambitious, given the fact that we had no -- it said -- one of them increase the numb number of stable positions that's outside of our abilities, but we can campaign to that, so I changed the verb. [Reading text rapidly] -- improve training and education, available for -- [indistinct] -- software and computing, and facilitate the community discussion develop pathways for individuals who have transitioned to other fields to return to academic positions, so this was we're not developing the pathway but facilitating discussion of community to develop such things.
And then I have the same issue that I had in the previous one that I -- [indistinct] -- more volunteers, which is, we need to put in text for -- for -- to establish recognition, awards, promote career development discussion, address structural challenges. All of these use some supporting text before we get to the recommendations. Just so to introduce the topic.
... regarding back up to ...
Um -- Verena, Gavin, Tulika is here. Would any of you like to help flesh out these sections?
>> TULIKA: I can help.
>> VERENA: Yeah, me too.
We are working on the -- [indistinct] -- vent, so perfect --
[Laughter]
>> IAN: You have plenty of time, and this particular task is, like -- most of it is trying to get a little bit of text onto the page, and then people can flesh it out.
And so hopefully it's not a terrible ask.
And I think that was -- oh, and then -- yes.
So that's -- so that brought us to, like -- so DEI had already been treated where the objectives and -- so the -- the objectives being to increase diversity to -- [indistinct] -- equity and enhance inclusion.
And then I will go through -- since I was working on this section, I will go through and do the same thing with 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, et cetera. Some of these things. And again, some of these things that say action items probably need to be changed into recommendations.
So there's a little bit of editing to be done. But that's sort of -- that's where we are right now on the text.
>> LIZ: It looks good!
>> IAN: Matthew.
>> MATTHEW: Okay. So since we agreed that we're going to move the technical working groups into tools in the other objectives --
>> IAN: I think what we agreed to do was to --
>> MATTHEW: Oh. .
>> IAN: -- the subject to be -- a subject about developing strategy? And that the technical working groups will be a tool underneath that.
>> MATTHEW: Okay.
>> IAN: So I will go through and fix that.
>> MATTHEW: Okay. Excellent. That answers my question. So it's not that the segment is getting split out and reassigned. It's just a rephrasing. Thank you. Perfect.
>> IAN: -- make it clear that the objectives are -- are the ability to -- are basically -- helping to just set strategy.
And then underneath that, there is -- there will be technical working groups.
Or the recommendation to form a technical working group, specifically.
All right.
That -- and so we will -- fleshing this out a little bit. I think at the moment we're at 16 pages, but there are still notes and things to clean out. If we add these paragraphs in, we will still be safely under twenty, which is probably where we like to be.
If I missed anything in the chat, please let me know.
>> JOEL: Yeah, one thing that I -- you'll notice, and this was really to be able to give the EC an overview. There's now a table of contents. People may or may not like that.
>> IAN: I like it. I think it was -- it was -- I thought it was -- table of contents.
Joel also, table of contents, and -- um -- tail -- title page. And we're now looking more professional.
>> JOEL: And you should look at the title. I -- you know, it -- it can't be called a coordinating panel for software and computing simply because it seems like too definite a -- I don't know what that is.
So we're doing something, and I don't know whether launch something a good word, but it came to mind late at night. Somebody should think about that.
But this is -- somehow this is -- this is the origin story. It's the -- we're creating it in some way. Or defining it in some way.
So, you know, somebody should -- should think about that. More than I did.
>> CHARLES: I think it works fine if you just drop the launching, and just coordinating panel -- [overlapping voices].
>> JOEL: That's the thing --
>> TULIKA: Just refuse the forming --
>> JOEL: Forming may be good. Yes.
You know, the CPA -- instrument and particle physics. When I pick that up, I don't expect to do so what I saw in there. It's forming a panel to -- to work on instrumentation and particle physics.
It seemed like that kind of a title was -- was -- was too ambiguous as to what the report might contain.
So I like forming. Forming, because it is the formation task force. That sounds good.
But somebody else might have a ... a different idea.
The rest is sort of copied from the CPAD.
>> IAN: What I liked about the table of contents was that I -- there were some discussions as to where we had focused our effort -- [muttering] -- table of contents, it shows like how many paces you devoted to each topic, some of indication -- [indistinct] -- effort.
>> JOEL: We should fill out item four.
>> IAN: Yes, that one -- when I redo that one, I will fix that.
>> JOEL: Right.
And it provided me with a real interesting challenge, to -- in a -- an article, which doesn't allow you to put in a table of contents as easily, to get the appendices, which we may not have in the end, but also have page numbers. That was an exciting adventure for me.
So we may not, you know, actually have appendices, unless somebody wants them. We could put the authors in the front page. Right now I would put them in the appendix.
But we might just put them on the front page of the article, with -- with institutions.
It's kind of up to you guys. As to what you want.
But anyway, I would say things look like they're in pretty good shape.
We have been asked to give a presentation to TPAP, and I'm listed to do that.
And they understand that this is not the final report, which will be later, and which I thought -- I think it's time for me to not be giving those reports.
But this one, I think I'll give because I'm in the country, in Washington, and so I'll be the one that gives it. That's what they showed on the agenda.
So it's a 15-minute report, and it will just show what our status is, and maybe -- talk about a few things.
>> IAN: But on the -- and on the -- [indistinct] -- Joel, the timing of that, we -- like, if we stick to our schedule, we will also have a draft, shareable report with the -- the -- those are on the same day, right?
>> JOEL: Yes. That is -- that is May 9. It's actually, I think, and unfortunately, the DPF-EC will not meet. Its May meeting I'm told is after that. I think it's the 11th or something. Or maybe not settled. But it's not for the 9th, so we'll have to communicate with them in some other way than just presented at a meeting of theirs.
>> TULIKA: Yeah, the meeting is during DPF. So that will not work.
>> IAN: Probably we had some method to send, I think -- [indistinct].
>> TULIKA: Are you wanting to send it?
>> IAN: It was a joke.
>> TULIKA: Okay. I didn't -- [chuckling].
>> JOEL: He was one short of initiating a -- a task force to investigate how we would do that.
[Laughter]
>> IAN: Is there any other business for today?
>> TULIKA: Ian, if I could confirm the time line. You would like us all to finalize, document basically, in two weeks' time, by two weeks?
>> IAN: By two weeks. And just to, like -- unless -- if this week is especially busy, then two weeks is fine. If it was possible, that by this time -- we might -- next week -- we won't meet in person next week, but I would like to have a summary -- given that we're sort of in the home stretch, I would like to send some summary minutes next Thursday as to what's still missing. If anyone want to touch that beforehand, that would be great. Otherwise, the idea would be to have all of these sections fleshed out that are missing by next meeting, and then our next meeting would then be spent sort of going through, figuring out what's missing, what we're not happy with in terms of the terms and the things that are written.
In the idea that we would then with -- and that will then ...
What needs to be done before we are able to share this with DEV, with the DPF EV the week after that. We're basically three weeks from a shareable document.
So we will figure out -- there will be a week -- a check point in a week, week one, a meeting at week two where we go through, and there will be a homework assigned at that, and probably another check point right before we release the document as a draft to the executive board in the following week.
>> TULIKA: Thanks. It might be good to have a specific date when we say the paper is complete, and everybody reads it and makes sure things are consistent.
>> IAN: And I'm hoping that date is Wednesday May 1st.
And I will -- that's -- like -- I don't -- because we -- because we have the real-time transcription, which has been incredibly helpful, I've not been sending out minutes, but I think we should send out minutes on this -- that's a -- this is the date that -- so the idea would be that all of the text that people want to -- to be read and reviewed will be available the night before our next -- [indistinct].
>> GIORDON: Why don't we just let people know after this meeting, that May 1st is the -- when everybody should be -- for people who are not here?
>> IAN: I think -- that would -- that would be that. There was -- that we are expecting that all of the text will be finalized by May 1st. And the people -- that the document is a readable form.
And -- but we will -- I think I still -- on next April 25th, I think I'll still send out this is where -- things that have been updated if people want to look at them, if there ...
Anything else?
If not, thank you very much. And I look forward to seeing people's contributions as they come in. Have a good day.
[Attendees say good-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.