May 2, 2024.
Tasks Force Plenary Editorial Meeting.
"This text is being provided in a rough draft format.
Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in
order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a
totally verbatim record of the proceedings."
>> I don't know if you noticed, Joel, I did the change that
you suggested. Which was to move the strategies direction
section into something at the end which said, implementation
strategies I think. And it needs to be essentially rewritten. I
moved it to section 6, I think.
>> I did not notice that because I printed this out around
noon or something. So you must have done it after that.
>> It changes the numbering and not anything else. I copied
it down and just changed the name and hit recompile.
>> I had some ideas for adding a few things to that section
to make it look a little less like one bullet.
>> No, I think that's a good idea. If we do implementation
strategies we can put all kinds of things in there. The
foundation task forces and the meetings.
>> The town halls and website.
>> It can become a pretty valuable section.
We'll talk about the strategy of the meeting in, when people
are connected.
>> They're starting to appear.
>> Good.
>> I see Maria, Steve, Adam.
>> Ian, I don't know if you saw a message from Giordon about
the invite. I got the invite.
>> Oh, did he not get the invite.
>> I did but he wrote that he didn't.
>> Okay. That's really strange because the invite was sent
using the same mailing list that everything else goes onto.
Okay.
Is he not on the -- he gets the normal emails, doesn't he?
>> I just sent him the link just in case.
>> Thanks, I'm fairly confident that I did not manually
screw that up because I used the -- I put the listserv into the
Google calendar invite when I sent the invite the first time.
And I did send, the reminder email sent out on Friday, there were
two. There was a reminder email and the invite that has the
link. And the link also is on, I checked, it's the link, I put
the correct I think on the Indico as well. So I hope that, I --
a lot of, I got a lot of, I should have send a calendar invite
before, I got a lot of confirmations of people they were
attending.
>> This dropped off my calendar for a few weeks and now it's
back. Whatever you did to change it, thank you.
>> No problem. I just, I specifically sent out an invite.
That shouldn't have -- that should appear in everyone's calendar,
I hope.
>> And Giordon is here.
>> I didn't get that invite. Charles sent me the link.
>> Did you get the meeting reminder that came before it?
There was one sent on Friday?
>> The other issue is, for whatever reason, sometimes my
Flatiron email is sent to spam for people. I don't know if that
applies to the calendar invites as well. I had that problem in
the past.
>> Yeah, I don't know. For some reason, I remember seeing
it in my calendar but it disappeared. I don't know. I think
maybe the settings got -- I don't know.
>> You're connected. So we're good.
It is 3:05. I was expecting a few more people based on the
acceptances. Liz, I was expecting certainly.
There's Liz.
And I guess Ruth accepted and Mike Kirby accepted. Let's
give people another minute or so.
>> I don't hear Ian, does anybody else have that problem?
>> We can hear Ian.
>> I can.
>> Can you hear us, Liz?
>> Liz, can you hear us?
>> You can always check the captions can hear you so assume
that Ian is able to speak.
>> Now, I figured out my problem, thank you.
>> No problem.
All right.
Let's get started. The purpose of today's meeting is to go
through the text that we have and fix it and track to arrive at a
fairly final set of text that by this time next week, we think we
can share at least with the executive board and potentially with
other.
It will serve as the basis for the presentation that we are
expected to make at Fino, I think the following Tuesday or
Wednesday.
So the document sections are largely independent from each
other. And so we can go through them in any order that we want.
The one thing that I wanted to bring up, there was a
suggestion -- and because I has impact on the other sections, I
would like to bring it up and resolve it first.
There was a suggestion by one of the committee members that
we might want to either eliminate or significantly refine or
rewrite the DEI section because it was potentially controversial
in some places. And faculty members would be prevented from
working on DEI activities.
Let me finish and then Maria we'll go to you.
And we needed to make a decision about what we want to do if
anything, because there's lot os of other references earlier in
the document. So Maria, please go ahead.
>> You're muted.
>> I want to apologize here. This dropped off of my radar
entirely. I wasn't keeping up with events. I don't know what is
in the DEI section right now because I know what was in the
Google doc. I don't know what is in it right now. I think I
probably need a little bit of time to think about it. And if
there were concerns, maybe we can -- you can forward them to me
or ship them to me or someone in this meeting can write them,
that would be great. Sorry, again, I've been out of the loop.
I can also look at it quickly?
>> Well, I have another idea. Why don't we start with that
section. If we start with that section, we will sort of keep
notes on what needs to be changed and then we can go onto the
other section.
I just as a -- and in the interest of time management, there
are officially five sections of the document. One of them which
was, has been called a couple of different things including task
forces and strategic direction. I have moved to a section called
implementation strategies with the idea being that will be a
section that has several things going in.
It needs a fair bit of rewriting because it, I think it
would be a more powerful section with that title at the end of
the document where we summarize the various pieces. But I think
that one needs to be redone. It's probably not ready for
discussion today.
The other four sections could be discussed and that will
keep us at the 2-hour mark if we use a half hour for each. I
propose we start with the DEI section and give it a half hour and
then go through the other sections.
Does that seem okay with people?
>> Can you do it in a different order? I need ten minutes
to catch up, sorry.
>> In that case, let's go through the governance section
first. That is one that we discussed the most and we will
probably continue to discuss it and perhaps it means we will wrap
up quickly. I'm going to share my screen. People can see my
screen?
>> Yes, we can.
>> Excellent.
All right. Here is the section. Joel, when -- did this,
how did they do this part? Did they read it allowed or
independently?
>> It depended on the section. It can be read independently
if you think it's just wordsmithing. If you think it needs
discussion, it helps to read it. Read the parts that need
discussion. This is probably one that we have to sign off on
each thing and there's a lot of things in there.
>> Right. Let's start, like, the committee will consist of
15 members selected by the executive committee. Appointed for 3
year terms renewable once, the call will extend to -- membership.
P.
The executive committee will -- regular panel numbers for
the full EEC. After the first year, the CPSC will form a joint
election committee of no more than six people and to select
nominations and choose the new panel numbers. If a member finds
they cannot carry out their responsibilities, the chair panel
will propose a replacement from the most recent years. The new
member will serve out the remainder of the vacated term and can
continue if the partial term is less than a year will not account
for a full year term.
There was discussion in the document if we wanted to allow
the chair to go off list. In case they were trying to achieve a
balance in the committee. I don't have particularly strong
opinions on that.
>> So it's really hard to describe what to do.
When the cases where I know that's been successful, there's
been a clear desire to have, you know, a few areas represented
and then it was possible to say, okay, if we miss one, we'll go
off list and add a member to the committee or something like
that. Here, I really don't exactly know how to write down what
it is that we --
>> A balance we're trying to achieve.
>> Yes.
>> I sort of agree. Unless people strongly disagree, I
propose that we leave it this way and let the -- if there's
nobody on, like, I suppose if there was nobody, the list has been
emptied, I don't know what will happen. But.
>> So there is, you know, there's a little bit of an
inconsistency here which I don't know that we have to correct.
But down below it talks about the kinds of, in order to achieve
representation, what kind of members? What should be the
criteria for members? There may be a statement about the DEI and
other things in there that tells you what, roughly, what balance
you're supposed to have. If there isn't, we can put one there.
>> Okay.
>> I can, tell you where that is. Guidance for selection of
CPSE remembers. That is 2.3.
So I suggest anything we do, we do in there.
>> Okay.
>> And --
>> I think that's a good idea. We leave this as it goes
from the list. That sounds good.
>> Then I do have a question, though. If we're still in
2.1.
>> Sure.
>> Just because of the way it's written. So is it clear
that in the first year although we're going to do some things to
get the stater right, we're nominating, selecting 15 people. All
15 people in the first year?
>> I think that is, that was at least my understanding. Is
it not clear.
>> I think it was our understanding and I want to make sure
everybody thinks that is clear enough.
>> We describe later how we're going to do, they have a
lottery for how the terms are divided out.
>> And you know, this implies that when you call for
nominations, you call for nominations for people who can serve
for three years. Some of them won't get to do that but that's
the list of people that the committee will be dealing with. They
will not, you know, when the selection is done, it will be
assumed that anyone that is nominated could in principle serve,
has agreed to serve three years and those 15 that you pick have,
it's implicit, have done that, too, right?
>> Yep.
>> You don't actually have to call them up and ask.
>> Right.
>> Okay.
>> Giordon, your hand is up.
>> Yes, I actually want to ask because this part is a little
confusing to me. So right now, the way this is raised to me at
least in the case that we pick 15 people at the start. But I had
two different questions here. One, how do we actually stagger
the terms of everybody? Because it seems worse if we have all 15
people need to be elected all at the same time. But then we
don't have anything about, sort of, when you say going off the
list in terms of nominations, I think instead of doing that, the
list should be formed from -- I'm not going to say this right,
the ex-official members. People who have previously served on
the committee and/or anybody who is currently on the CPSC
formation task force could be considered to substitute in until
an election can happen.
>> So first of all, the method we're doing to stagger is
described in detail below.
>> Section 2.2.
>> Right.
>> And then second, you know, if we want to be broad and
representative, the idea is having a general call gets a lot of
attention. And we certainly didn't want to restrict or prefer
the CPSC members when we form -- I mean the FTF members. When we
form the FTF members we said it wouldn't preclude them from being
on this. Is that right, Ian, I think that's what we said?
>> I think so.
>> We didn't guarantee and didn't preclude.
>> I think we said, did not get you off, get you out of
having to serve on the committee. But Giordon, Giordon, you have
a follow up and then we'll go to Verena.
>> Yeah. So just thinking about it, okay, I see what you
mean by the term being staggered. I understand what you mean by
lottery. I was in the next section.
How does the term limit come into place when you need to
replace somebody and you're going to pick from someone who
already served two terms for example. Do you ignore term limits
in the exceptional cases or are you strict about it? Meaning,
once they served, you know, two years on the committee or they've
served twice or something that they can never serve on the
committee again?
>> Also, two, well, two issues. One, the idea of choosing
from the list of people who have been nominated but not selected
to serve, meant they were eligible. So they wouldn't not have
already served their two terms. I think that speaks in favor of
using the list of potential nominees rather than a broader list.
The term limits are in place. In some sense if you replace
someone that only served for a year, that doesn't count against
the term limit. At some point do we say consecutive term, Joel?
>> This is really interesting and I'm glad you raised that.
The CPAD thing says you can't serve two consecutive terms.
First of all they violated that in their first two periods. But
that's what it said. They think it says two terms total but
that's not what it says.
And at least not in the bylaws. We can write it either way.
I think you have to think through whether you want -- do
you think this thing will be attractive enough that there will
always be people who want to serve? Essentially fresh people
coming in? Or do you think that won't be the case?
It would be awkward to have a situation where you wound up
after a few years, just getting the same people over and over
again. Of course, that's a choice that gets made, right? It
doesn't have to be that way?
>> My personal feeling is that saying that it's three terms
renewable once, and you're ineligible after a three-year period
of activity, at least gives you the flexibility of selecting
people without having the requirement of doing it in case it's
not as popular as we might think. I'm open to suggestions.
Verena?
>> Yes, I had a slightly different question I wanted to ask.
For this section, if that's okay.
>> Yeah.
>> So I was wondering, maybe this is obvious, but I was
wondering if we wanted to mention it would be good to follow,
quote unquote best practices for the selection of the committee
members. For example, the search committee should reflect a
diversity of views. That we have like a description of what the
position entails. You already mentioned like open call for
nominations but also allow self-nominations.
Then we have some idea of the qualifications before
selecting candidates, those sorts of things.
I don't know. That the committee can maybe try to make sure
for example if they talked to candidates they ask, they talk --
they ask similar questions. Those sorts of things.
We don't have to go into all these details but just say
something about that. About encouraging good practices for
the -- does that make sense what I'm asking? Something about
this?
>> It makes sense. In some sense we're giving instructions
to the executive committee which I hope is unnecessary. But we
can certainly, we can put it down as long as it's not, like -- I
worry -- yeah.
>> I'm not saying necessarily put all these instructions.
Those were just some suggestions. People can do whatever they
want. I'm just saying it might be nice, you say no more than six
people from the committee and the executive committee. Right.
Maybe we can say it would be nice if it was a diverse committee
if possible and maybe they could try to follow some practice.
Sometimes these things can be contentious, right. How exactly
people are picked and so on. So it would be nice to have a good
process. We can encourage a good process, does that make sense?
I don't know.
>> I'm wondering why we decided we needed to specify the
number of people to be on the selection committee.
>> The only reason we did that and I think this may be left
out, is that the EC is supposed to, well, the EC is supposed to
approve this, right.
>> Right.
>> The EC is of order ten. So if half of the people come
from the EC that's already three. I will tell you, I looked at
CPAD and it looks like the DPF vice chair in the year of an
election actually becomes very important.
And we could -- but that is completely, that's whoever you
get, right.
>> Right.
>> I mean that can't by definition be balanced if you like.
Except that you can say the person is elected by all DFF, but
that would be true and it's not exactly the same constituency.
So I think it's a fair question. If we don't put down any
number, it may wind up being a big number and then you may wind
up having a lot of problems.
>> Right. I guess to address Verena's concern, would people
find it acceptable to say, a representative committee of no more
than six and add a sentence that says something like the
committee will publish the requirements of the job and follow
best practices in the selection or something along that line.
>> That sounds great. Yes. So we're recording, so we will
add that and have the transcript.
>> Or someone can type it in if they want. Charles?
>> I guess it's really hard to say beforehand how popular
this position will be. And so I kind of wonder if we say two
terms and you're out might be too restrictive. Especially if we
have some very keen early career people who put in their service
time at the beginning and then they can no longer contribute for
the rest of their career? I think either two consecutive terms
or specify a cooling off period might be more beneficial. Maybe
we can get incite from CPAP as to how difficult it was to find
people but I don't know what the parallels are between the two
communities.
>> I think we can, I think, saying that term for no more
than two consecutive terms and then indicate there is a break.
Solves the problem of, like you were describing, someone that did
two terms when they were young and they have to go work for CPAD
instead after that.
>> Just one comment. Okay. Just because you're not on the
panel doesn't mean you can't work on all the projects that are
being done. Just thought I would mention that.
>> Yep.
Steve, your hand was up?
>> It was. Well, first of all, I support the language of
two consecutive terms. I think that's simple and a person would
go off for at least one year. We don't have to be too specific
about it. I found the six people --
>> One term I would say.
>> I wouldn't. But you know, you have, you're allowed to
have your idea. You know, you could go off a year -- which I
said.
>> One year, that's fine, too. That's what two consecutive
terms means.
>> I would say, as long as you're not the third consecutive
term, you can be off for one year, two years, et cetera. Anyhow,
I found six people from the CPSC and EC a little confusing when I
first read it. I thought it meant 6 people from the panel and
the whole EC. So if you're going to keep close to this, you
might put in six total people or something.
>> Sure.
Okay.
>> Maybe other people didn't read it that way.
>> No, I think you can read it either way and so we should
fix it. Let's fix it.
>> Yep.
>> Okay.
Anything else?
>> I think somewhere we lost the idea, maybe not. Scroll
back up just a little. It says that endorsement by the full EC,
that's what needed to be in there. That's a sentence that seems
to apply to the first year.
>> Oh, um --
>> So it may need to be repeated after the next sentence or
maybe you think it's obvious and it doesn't have to be.
>> No, I think we are missing the section -- solicit
nomination and choose new panel members. To me that implies this
committee of six is choosing the members. I think we need to say
full endorsement by the EC in that section.
>> Okay. Right at the end of the first paragraph in this
section it should say that.
>> Yep. Otherwise I think it reads the committee of six is
making the choice.
>> Got it.
>> Excellent.
Okay. I think this section is probably -- the section --
this section is relatively easy. The chair of the CPSC will be
selected from the eligible panel members and confirmed by the EC
for a 3-year term (reading) serve for 3-year terms to choose five
of the members to serve for one year, two for two years and four
for three. After the first year, a third of the members will be
elected each year to replace the members whose terms have
expired. Renewal for a second term, the full three years. A
member may only serve for one term, I think that's fine.
The CPSC chairperson in consultation with the (reading)
substitute for the chairperson --
I think in all of these places we're better off replacing
that with "they". It's the plural pronoun and it's simpler.
>> I did it because the grammar was bothering me.
>> The New York Times uses they, we can use they.
>> That's okay. That's fine. I have no commitment to that.
>> Okay.
>> Just a quick question though. We are always electing the
chairperson no matter what, right?
>> I believe.
>> No.
>> I guess the reason I ask is sometimes, at least I'm
thinking about it in terms of how ATLAS does this but maybe this
is not common. We usually only elect deputy people and then they
get promoted to the chairperson. In my mind there are two ways
of doing it. One is you only elect the -- person who replaces
the current chairperson. And other way is the committee can
decide who wants to be the deputy chairperson. You only elect
members of the committee. The committees themselves will decide
who is the chairperson rather than everybody who is providing
nominations so to speak.
>> So, that's an interesting question. We don't actually
specify how this chair will be selected, do we?
>> No. We do, actually. Maybe it's not apparent but I
thought it was.
Effectively after the first year, it says that the
chairperson and the EC will have this six-person panel and they
will make the selections. They conduct, they will be a small
election commission and call for nominations. They will, I think
as a first instance if it's necessary to pick a chairperson that
year they will pick a chairperson. And then with the chairperson
and say two other members of the panel itself and three members
from the EC but maybe it won't be divided up that way, I don't
know.
They will then select the rest of the members which will be
for that year.
If there's a chairperson to select?
>> Right.
>> In the first year around, there's no panel to draw from.
There is no chairperson. So they will, this commission will be
all EC members I guess and select the chairperson and 14 members.
>> Right. I guess my -- so for instance, at year whatever,
six, it's time to elect the chairperson. Are you limited then to
only the incoming people to be nominated as chair? Or people, or
only those people plus the ones being renewed for a full second
term? What happens if you don't have the access to the full
committee I suppose or you do?
>> I think anyone who is on the committee and whose term
will not expire in the next three years is eligible along with
anyone who is new. That is what I think.
>> That would eliminate you to a third of the committee and
or --
>> No. I mean, there will be people who were elected the
previous year who are eligible. There are people who are elected
two years before that, they're eligible.
There are people who were elected three years ago who aren't
going to be, that are going to go off the committee because it's
their second term, they are not eligible.
But there are people who are eligible for new term and who
presumably put their name in or allowed their name to be put in.
I think they're eligible, too. A lot of people are eligible.
This is very complicated, I agree?
>> So I guess what I would like to propose is that we at
least add a sentence that says, that members will not -- members
will be -- we need a nomination process including a
self-nomination process for the chair of some sort. Just a
sentence, I think.
>> Okay.
>> Or maybe, I don't know. Like will be selected from
eligible panel members, what if the person doesn't want to be
chair?
>> Usually you say we'd like you to be chair and the person
says no, I don't want to do it. You move to the next person. I
don't know. I understand anybody in DPF understands the think
that Giordon says that can be used and workable. Which is you
always elect a vice chair and the first time you have to do a
chair and a vice chair and the vice chair eventually, you know,
secedes the chair but that has a problem, too. Because then it
turns out you have to be very careful about nominating the vice
chair because the vice chair if you want him to be the chair
because the term is three years, that person is making a 6-year
commitment in some sense.
>> That's the issue. At ATLAS and DPF, they rotate because
otherwise you're committing someone to six years.
>> And most people are committed to the experiment, right,
they're lifers. They're not leaving. This is not that case. So
I think it's okay the way it is.
I mine the fact that somebody was a vice chair may make it,
make any committee that is selecting the next chair take note,
right?
>> Right.
>> I think the next section of this part, Steve, go ahead.
Steve? You're muted?
>> Sorry I was muted. This doesn't explicitly state the
deputy serves for three years and the possibility is to say the
deputy serves as the pleasure of the chair. And if the deputy
wants to step down or the chair gets tired of the deputy, the
chairperson picks a new deputy in consultation with the EC.
>> Yep.
>> That was good. Ian? I'm just taking notes here. I'll
have the recording and the transcript.
>> Yes, but I think we can fix that.
Okay. This is a section there were a lot of comments and I
think it's probably still not quite done. Let's go through it
and see if we can fix it.
Guidance for selection of CPSC members. Software and
computing have large multidisciplinary set (reading) experiences,
there is a typo there. And theoretical physicist cysts --
challenging for a panel of only 15 members to reach out to all of
these committees. (reading).
Desirable to have a representative from many areas of the
program. With a commonality and concerns should allow support
for constituencies across the committee. With the help and
advice of the panel membership should ensure (reading)
viewpoints, I think that should be plural, broad viewpoints.
While there are broad viewpoints -- commonalities across
scientific activities, (reading) portability of skills. When
choosing committee members it's important to have a balanced
representation across the following areas.
Sources of support, I changed it to duration of position.
Laboratory staff have different potential needs than research
staff or faculty. Stage of career including early career, the
needs of the person, like the viewpoint of someone in their early
career is different from a tenured faculty member.
Technical skills and expertise. This was specifically the
idea, especially in software computing there are some technical
skills that are highly sought after outside of our community.
And people have a very different view about their job prospects
if they have an easy way out.
While no targets are provided, foster (reading)?
>> Giordon, go ahead.
>> I think you mentioned an interesting point here that I'm
wondering if we should make a -- when selecting committee
members. Something about making sure everybody on the committee
has a disclaimer about, disclaimer. That's the sort of thing
like in politics when you elect somebody, you need to know their
associations to understand where they're current -- are.
You mentioned this briefly here with phasing like --
sorry -- right here. And are able to afford representing too
vigorously their own professional interests. I think it's fine
to ask people to try to be unbiased if possible. I think it also
helps to be more accountable and just make each person's
affiliations more public. If that makes sense?
>> Um, I'm wondering, I'm wondering how that would be, how
one -- what you're asking for is a conflict of interest form
essentially.
>> Yeah. I think a conflict of interest was what I was
thinking of. I think it's okay -- not that it's a conflict but I
think when you publicize the committee members, you'll have their
name, the institutional affiliation. But perhaps their
affiliations with the different categories we have. Are they in
national lab. Are they tech industry or are they -- those broad
categories so people can understand the committee makeup from a
list of pictures and names, basically.
>> Hum.
So Giordon, if we put in here, it says the committee is
composed of people who have broad viewpoints, connect to more
than one constituency. If we can put that on something like and
are transparent about affiliations that could impact their
performance on this panel. Or something like that. Would that
at least in general sort of address your problem?
>> Yes. I think so. Just to make sure that it's
transparent. I don't know, I'm just maybe slightly worried about
things, this is just coming from a -- that I was seeing the other
day. But when we talk about things like GPU or these future
hardware technologies, I get worried that somebody sees some
financial interest and tries to push us towards a particular
technology because they have a financial interest in seeing that
come out and they want to see more demand. So I think just
having that transparency might ease my paranoia a little bit.
>> Okay. Transparency about affiliations. In terms of
keeping track of things, the CPSC is encouraged to keep
statistics on the panel minute and nominations and seek feedback
from the community (reading) the idea is they will keep stats on
where people are coming from and make that public. Steve.
>> Following up on Giordon, I was thinking maybe
representing too vigorously could be changed to representing too
narrowly.
>> That's a good, that's a --
>> I like that.
>> And the conflict of interest, well I know I have to fill
out a conflict of interest form every year for the University. I
suppose it wouldn't necessarily cover this in the same way. But
in general, I wonder if lab people also have to do that.
>> I certainly have to do it. But I don't know about the
lab people.
>> I just wanted to say that recently DPF has started asking
the EC members, for example to file a conflict of interest form.
I don't know if this will go down to, you know, DPF founded
organizations such as CPSC.
>> I think if we put in the text it says transparent
about -- thing along those lines, that opens us the possibility
that the committee can organize a conflict of interest policy and
form.
>> I like it. I think it is, it covers the concern Giordon
raised.
>> The next thing is to ensure that CPSC represent the
entire interest of the software computing community, it is
necessary to involve broad participation (reading) averaged over
time there is a balance in the following science and technical
areas. Representational fractions of experimental and
computational developers, representatives from each of the major
experiments in roughly equal numbers and including representation
from small experiments. Representatives of all major theoretical
computational activities.
I'm not sure the last one is necessary. I think there are
fractions of experimenting and theoretical computational
developers but I don't mind it either. There was before, if you
remember, we spelled out the activities that seemed like more
detail than we need in this document. But I'm happen for it to
say. We said averaged over time it needs to be balanced rather
than specifying at every instant of time it needs to be balanced
which seems unachievable. Steve?
>> You won't be surprised this is one of my areas of
concern. If you look at this panel, I think there were only
three theorists appointed out of all the appointed members. I
may be wrong if I'm not recognizing some theorists please let me
know. And frankly, you know, in a big experiment, there's lots
of activities, computing is part of it. In a project like mine,
computing is essential. It's basically all of it.
And the types of computing in the theory community are quite
broad as Peter Boyle and Ruth have pointed out. We can't always
represent the different types-over theoretical computing, the
algorithms are different, the software bases are different.
I may be just as myopic about my experiment as I feel that
people are about theory computation and not recognizing the
broadness in experiment. But I'm really concerned that theory
will be terribly under represented in the current vague language.
>> Representative fractions.
>> Well, I would have suggested being kind of saying it
should be, there is five people appointed each year. I would
have said three experimentalists and two theorists. But you
know, people have, are going to have their own points of view. I
just displayed my concern. I will also say, I cochaired the
theory -- the computational frontier and this is like the big
thing I've been trying to get done over 7, 8 years.
>> So part of the problem Steve, and this is important for
me at least, is that I think many of the members here should not
be even affiliated with either experiment or theory. They should
be various kinds of developers or various kinds of engineers.
They may be working with some groups for a long haul or possibly
moving from group to group. But if you want to have the kind of
discussion about software, for example, that we hope to have or
AI that we hope to have, there are going to be people that simply
aren't part of any of these categories.
And I think that we have to accept that. I don't know that
they'll be five experimenters or three experimenters from, say,
the collider community on this thing.
So you know, it's just hard for me to figure out whether
your concerns are valid and I also think that people will have to
represent constituencies that they're not part of but they are
close to and they may have to do a little homework or get some
advice.
Which is another way of expanding your knowledge base,
right. You can have somebody that you talk to do help you, to
help guide your participation, if you were on this panel.
Anyway, that's enough to say?
>> And Steve, one of the things I wanted to say, when I
wrote the earlier piece of this particular section, it was with
the idea that, like there was more commonality between for
instance people that work on HPC that can account for, there is a
therapy people and job opportunities and career development
challenges that would be more similar to people doing the other
kinds of HPC work than necessarily the distinction between theory
and experiment. And so there are, there are people whose
software and computing skills are in code optimization for C++
that puts them in a specific niche. They might have more
commonality between other people doing optimization of theory
codes than experiment codes rather than the particular science
activity.
So I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise. But in some sense I
think that the scientific activities, actually have, are less
indicative of the help that people need maybe than the technical
ones in this particular case.
But ... If that makes sense?
>> I heard you. I guess it's kind of a question of what
kind of activities. We're not going to be writing code within
the committee. So I think what you should be pointing out, what
are the needs in general for support and things like that.
>> Right. So looking through the rest of the document, the
sections that are there are about communication in the field.
About career development. About DEI. And those for instance,
like career development, there are, like, I think there's lot
more commonality between people at the early stage of their
careers whether they're experiment or theory in a software
position at the University than they are the distinctions between
those.
Maybe, I may be being shortsighted about the whole thing but
it seems like many of the things that are mentioned later are
applicable to groups of people rather than their scientific
activities?
>> So this is sort of stated in the first sentence of the
first paragraph which we should probably think about, right.
That's what you say there. Somebody said that there. Right.
>> Yes, something like that.
>> Many more commonalities for communication than there are
sub field specific needs. That's sort of what is meant there,
right.
>> Yep.
That's what's meant there. It may not be described
correctly but that's what the idea was. Was that the -- if you
look through the document, we're not talking a lot about the
technical challenges facing these groups because we can't. There
is no money. There is no -- but we are talking about training
and things like career development and raising the profile of
people who work in the computing area. And those at least, like,
I'm happy to change representative fractions of experiments and
theory to equal fractions of experiment and theory. If we think
the rough numbers of people are the same. That is what my -- I
didn't know how the balance of people went. When I said a
representative fraction, I was excepting if it's 60 percent of
the people in software and computing work and therapy and
40 percent in theory, that should be the balance. If it's 50/50,
that should be the balance?
>> Can I please speak. I've had my hand up for a while.
>> It rolled off of some of our screens, I apologize.
>> I wanted to contribute to this. Because if I think of
the way I do, like the people I talk to about my computing work
is the following. I have two advisors from ATLAS, two from CMS.
Two different theories they discuss my computer problems with.
Two sets of people from neutrino and two people from
simulation. And then there are the other cosmic experiments that
I discuss my computing problems with in depth. None of these
people are in EC. But I know they know what I'm doing. And I
know that they are aware of my problems and challenges.
For example, if I wasn't in this meeting, I know a
combination of -- sorry for calling on you and I'm not trying to
put you on the spot, a combination of Charles and Liz should be
able to represent accurately what I need. If they weren't, they
would reach out to me and ask what the problems are.
I don't see this as we need a person per experiment or we
need a person from -- I like the language from here in the sense
of let's not forgot about neutrinos or accelerators entirely.
Yes, I'm -- the way the computing work happens is not, that we're
unaware of each other's problems?
>> I think it's perfectly reasonable to say representatives
of the major experiment programs and covering and then skipping
roughly equal numbers. I guess I'm hoping that -- I hope whoever
makes the selection does the balance and doesn't always choose
ATLAS people. But I don't know that we can be that explicit
about it.
>> If I heard you, just eliminating for each representatives
would be an improvement.
>> Right. Representatives of the major experiment programs.
All experimental peers --
>> You need in roughly equal numbers?
>> I don't think so.
Tulika go ahead?
>> I don't think it's needed. Frankly, we always try to
have similar numbers of CMS and ATLAS. But in this context, it
doesn't matter so much if it's CMS or ATLAS. The challenges and
the issues are similar. Of course, that doesn't mean we
shouldn't strive for that but I don't think we have to be exact
in terms of equal numbers.
>> Yeah. I think we can get rid of that.
I do think there is a value in having a balance of lab and
university employee people. There is a very different
professional experience in those two places. Especially with the
concept of the -- how those people are funded is like, it's less
different than it used to be but it's still different?
>> Just a minor question here. When we talk about these
source of [inaudible] where do you, positions like research
software and engineers fall under?
>> I guess I had put that, Giordon one level up in the
things I thought were important to keep as balance, like the
things that were sort of critically important to the balance of
the committee. Like duration and stability of position was, that
was where I thought we needed to have a represent of people with
lab staff and faculty and university research staff, et cetera.
That is where I put that category.
And that balance was there -- the sections above; those four
bullets are the ones that I thought if the committee was working
to, if they were choosing attributes to make sure the committee
was balanced, those were the ones where the -- it was most
important to balance the committee because that is where there
are scientifically common but potentially experience, different
experiences.
And the second section was is much more about -- I think we,
one thing we potentially can move lab and university up to the
top section if we wanted to. But the second section is much more
about trying to balance across the field's activities rather than
the community experience.
Steve?
>> Do I still have my hand up?
>> No. It's more of a question to you, which was, if we
said averaged over time, it should be equal fractions of
experiments and theoretical computation developers, would that
make you feel better?
>> That would make me feel pretty good.
>> Okay. Then we'll do that. Balanced over time. Okay.
Much of this should be noncontroversial. To accomplish the
full scope of work, the CPSC may want to appoint advisors and
affiliates that help communicate with a broader community. I
think that probably should say they may choose international
members. I think we should add that.
Interactions between the CPSC and DPF?
>> Can I make a comment. This is a place where you can fix
things, right. If you don't get nominees from certain places you
can try to chase people down. Will fill in for a year or
something in a missing place. I just wanted to make sure it's a
short section but you can -- it does something for you.
>> Yes. I think there is a value in this section. Also, I
think given the experience of forming this committee and the
committee that formed this committee, we focus naturally in the
U.S. but most of these programs are international. So it would
be nice to have international observers as well.
The DPF sponsorship?
>> Can I ask a question? Can we quantify that a little bit
more? What would it be useful for? I'm trying to understand
what exactly we're trying to get from international members?
I mean the experiments are already international, you
naturally have that international perspective already to some
degree. But what do we need beyond that?
>> Well, there's a lot of software that probably requires
international collaboration to support. There are things like
accelerators that are not well accounted for necessarily here and
probably need some -- I don't know. Ian, I'm going to --
>> I will go in a second. But I think what would be useful
if we look at the things the committee is doing in terms of
career development and training and communication. Having
connections to the international community for communications
certainly has value. But in areas of career development. One of
the experiences that we had especially in the experiment program
is that not all places are able to support software developers in
the same way or to retain them or -- and many of the challenges
in terms of elevating the value of the positions are not just a
U.S. challenge but international one. And having observer
feedback would have a value. I think that having essentially
liaison connections outside might -- would have a value.
>> I don't disagree with that. I think that really, that
point that you just raised. I think that's a very good one. I
think that's -- a good -- it's good to make that explicitly.
That's, yes, thanks for -- thanks for saying that.
>> No problem. Tulika.
>> I was going to add on I think I like the career
development. I was thinking for example, how do other countries
deal with HPCs and other facilities. There are things we could
learn from our international colleagues who are fully plugged
into their system. They work with us but maybe we don't follow
that so closely.
>> The point of HPC, the U.S. has had a very specific view
on building leadership machines and how they're used by the
theory and the experimental community and that is not necessarily
applied to the European colleagues and having those lines of
communications to see the benefits and draw backs of each
strategy would also have a value as well.
Charles? Yes. I was going to say the same thing. Just to
follow up that I think there's a lot of cross fertilization that
can be had with colleagues and universities in other countries.
Think things we can learn from them. And the opposite, they
might want to say we would really like to study how the CPSC is
studying from an internal viewpoint so we can improve things in
our own communities.
>> The next -- most of this is I think logistics. The CPSC
will include facilitation and formation of subsequent operations
of the panel and (reading) newsletters. Special messages and
providing gentle management for the oversight and activities.
That's a euphemism if I ever heard one.
The duties working together (reading) chairperson among the
field of eligible members and panel appointing any prize
committees and monitoring the process to determine the awardees
according to the rules. Ensuring that the communities informed
of CPSC communities and (reading) monthly newsletter and making
timely announcements of other information through the mailing
list.
Ensuring that all activities are conducted according to the
code of conduct. Through the chairperson keep the EC informed of
the activities and provide an annual report. Making brief
updates twice a year of the monthly meetings and more frequently
if necessary.
Informing the chairperson of any major issues including
operational issues or code of conduct problems. The former
relationship between CPSC and the executive committee will be
specified in the bylaws. This is going to take time to receive
final approval for the APS for modifications to the bylaws. The
CPSC will begin to operate as soon as the DFF EC approves the
bylaws changes and submits them to the APS (reading) appendix B
to help facilitate with the discussion.
Comments on this section? Giordon?
>> I missed this on the original read through.
Third bullet point on the second block here, informing the
DPF slash EC chairperson of major issues and code of conduct
problems. I thought the whole point of the code of conduct is
that the contact person who is assigned to handle code of conduct
issues is not part of the committee?
They should be -- it should be sort of anonymous and should
be able to report code of conduct violations about the committee
without the contact person being part of the committee itself?
>> Yes. We should remove that. It's liability and it
doesn't help.
>> Okay. This is Joel again. So nobody said anything --
[laughing] about reporting -- how do I want to say this -- for
the host committee not to know even whether there are instances
and what their general character is, I think is a little bit
sketchy.
>> Joel, let's you and I not have this conversation on the
recording because I chaired the first advisory committee, the
executive committee. The chair line killed all or reports. So I
think this should not be in this document. The chair line and
the EC should not be involved in the ethics anyways. They -- of
the task force.
>> I can already tell you we should probably just delete it
now.
>> Yep.
>> Because I think that we probably have mutual
misunderstanding about that committee. So let's just delete it.
>> Well --
>> Including organizational issues.
>> We should not propagate these organizational issues to
this committee that has nothing to do with it. It's a problem
that hadn't been solved by the EC and it's going to poison this
task force. So just remove that, please.
>> Remove what? Including organizational issues.
>> Informing the DCP of any -- I would remove the whole
thing.
>> Let me just explain to you. I'm not going to argue about
this but let me explain to you what the implication of this are.
The implications are that the APS could and has found out
something and said to the DFF, you are responsible for this
because you're posting it. We're not responsible in the sense of
controlling it. But we're supposed to know something about it
and represent it and we may have never heard about it.
If, for example, the kind of organizational change that CPAD
had is undertaking now, were not communicate today the committee,
it would not be known the bylaws have to be changed.
APS has an ethics reporting scheme that I think we will have
to use. So I'm willing to leave the ethics part out because APS
has set that up. If this is a problem, it has to be reported by
somebody to the APS. But I think organizational changes would
have to be reflected in the bylaws. How can the EC, it would be
not so good if the EC were not informed and it was discovered
there were major changes.
Somebody else may want to speak up on this as another person
on EC. But it just seems that we can't really take that out?
>> Tulika is next, I think.
>> I guess my question really is that I think this committee
could potentially be asked to talk about in large terms, you
know, have you had incidents? Have incidents been reported? And
therefore, needs to have a mechanism whereby they can give some
information. I mean even for example labs are asked, right?
What has happened? So I don't think specific incidence should be
brought up. However, the fact that incidents have been
occurring, needs to be brought to the attention I think.
>> Sorry, there are two bullets up there in which we report
to the DPF and we as in this computing board, and in writing once
a year and twice a year at the, more frequently.
What does, what are you guys concerned of that is not
covered by we'll report to the DPF?
>> Charles, you put your hand down. Did you have a comment?
>> This may be a diversion but it kind of relates to this.
Unless I'm mistaken we don't have language in this document that
has to say under what conditions can a member of the panel be
removed?
You know, if there is some ethical violation or something
like that, how do we remove a person?
>> We don't. The APS does it. We don't have the legal
thing. The executive committee set up and the ethics advisory
committee of which I was the first chair. I was threatened by
somebody that made a complaint. There was no resource by
anybody. APS has the structure and legal team and the money to
protected their members. This panel and the executive committee
don't have the infrastructure to deal with code of conduct.
I know it's good to think, oh, we have the power to improve
the behavior of the community. It makes us feel good but it
isn't. It's not how this works in practice.
>> Okay. So I'm trying to get my hand up but I guess nobody
else has their hand up. Look. That wasn't what was intended.
What was intended is to know the level of problems.
The EC does not want to get involved in that. Right now you
put it in a database for APS and they will do things and they do
harsher things than many of us would do on occasion. But it's
what Maria said, it's up to them. This is part of, this is
hosted by APS. They'll do it. Individuals can file their own
complaints. And it would, however, have been nice, this is
reflecting in some sense experience with Snowmass when a lot more
was apparently going on than the EC knew about. We knew about
some big things but there were a lot of things that we didn't
know about.
And we didn't even understand the magnitude of the problem.
That was the worst thing about it.
We were just at a lost. If people asked, we said things
were going fine. They weren't going fine so much. I think that
was a little bit what Tulika is saying, just be good to have some
general information about how things are going. But if it's
controversial, I don't think we should --
>> I guess the question I have is, there are three bullets
here. One is proposing a written report that seems
uncontroversial. One is proposing a twice a year oral report.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to have the final bullet say, the
chair will inform the DPF and executive chairperson of major
issues as they come up. The problem that people have is if
something has come up and the next oral report is not for 6
months and then it goes to some level above the EC and they know
nothing about it, they might question why that was.
If there are things to be mentioned in those previous two
section, we simply say they will be mentioned or is that a
problem, Maria?
>> The problem I have with this is the following: You're
already making the statement that the CPSC keep informed about
the activities. Right.
You can add this will include those two bullets. You're
going to have to write the document, suppose you're the chair of
this thing Ian, do we need to write in the statutes that you have
permission to send an email to whoever the chair is now of the
DPF?
>> Maybe we do. Not that I need permission but there is an
expectation that I will communicate with the hosting board if
there are things they need to know. That's the issue.
>> Can you write communicate in the chairperson as needed?
>> Yes. Informing the DPS executive chairperson as needed.
I think that's sufficient.
>> Okay. We were trying to prompt two issues that sometimes
get overlooked but I guess it's okay. I mean you can also put it
elsewhere I suppose. No, okay, that's fine. As needed.
>> As needed.
>> But you know, that, there have been situations where
there have been divergent views about what is needed. Some
committees want to become totally autonomous which we would like
for this I think. But it's connected to APS and they hold EPF
accountable for some things.
Like --
>> In some sense, I think it should be the requirement of
the DPF Executive Committee to help define what is needed and it
doesn't need to be written in this document.
>> Okay. Then we better say that then.
>> Right.
>> How do you propose to say that.
>> I don't know. I'm hesitant to write down the individual
ones because we'll miss some that are important. Because you
can't be a comprehensive list here, probably.
>> Right. So the minimal thing that -- I mean, I'm happy to
see the code of conduct go away. But some aspects of the
organization show up in the bylaws. For example, if you really
wanted to develop an organ-o-gram. That I would say is something
that should get discussed.
If you have task forces of all kinds, that sounds to me like
an annual report or an update?
>> I would claim the organ-o-gram is twice annually. I'm
talking about the things that are embarrassing. It was
embarrassing if they didn't talk about them and it's time
critical. The organo-gram is less critical if they change the
bylaws every four months maybe nobody gets bent out of shape.
>> The best that I can say is that not all experiences in
this regard have been pleasant. So let's just leave it as it is
and move on.
>> Okay. We're leaving it as needed.
>> As needed.
>> Would you say add needed by the DPF EC. That at least
shows it's their duty to define what as needed means. I think we
can agree to that, right?
>> Well. That gives them a pretty wide scope.
>> Okay. Never mind.
>> Well, no, I like the idea. But what does Ian think?
>> We're trying to formalize something that should be common
sense. I'm worried by formalizing it, we make it, it's going to
be counterproductive. That's the point I'm trying to make here.
>> Let's move on. Put as needed and let's move on.
>> The formal, yes, we covered this section. All right.
Maria, I have given you an hour and 15 minutes. Are we ready to
do the DEI section with the understanding that we will probably
only get through it by the 5 o'clock end of this meeting in which
case we will have to do the other two sections at some time in
the future?
>> We. We may have to circle back anyways. The DEI
section, you rewrote it, is that what happened.
>> I didn't rewrite it necessarily. There was a set of
rough notes and there was things that have been, we discussed
this section from the transcript and I composed it from those
notes.
>> So you wrote it. Not rewrote it, wrote it.
>> Yes.
>> What part of it is controversial?
>> Actually, I scrubbed out a couple of the things that were
controversial. One was, like, at some point in our -- so like,
let's see, all of these things -- the overall goals are
uncontroversial. As are for instance, many of these things, I
think 5.3 is not controversial but I think it's a bit
prescriptive. In the sense if the goal is to increase the size
of the workforce and the participation in the workforce, that
should be the goal which is somewhat different from a remote work
goal. Remote work is in some sense an implementation. But the
goal should be increased in diversity and participation in the
workforce. I would propose to -- that we might want to rework
this.
>> That was me rewritten from what I meant. Not the goal.
>> I think we should -- I think this --
>> Happy to rewrite that, yes.
>> There was another, I think we need to be a little
careful. Again, with the work to eliminate residency
requirements that exclude non-U.S. residents in training and
development. We might want to sort of change the order of that
in some sense to talk about, again, to increase the participation
of the workforce and the -- to increase participation that we
want to include allow ourselves to include -- work to eliminate
residency requirements. Work to eliminate residency requirements
may hit resistance. An overall goal of increasing the number of
people that participate and get trained is not controversial.
>> I wrote my notes in a way of opportunity. You wrote it
as goal and options. And I don't like doing actions in this way.
Meaning, these are all opportunities that we're not leveraging.
>> Okay.
>> So maybe that's a way to make it a little less, I don't
know, jarring.
>> Okay. I think that's fine.
>> I'm happy if we sort of rework this or -- I didn't
eliminate your notes. I made them comments so they didn't appear
in the PDF. I didn't erase anything.
>> You said something about faculty members were not allowed
to participate in this at the beginning of our meeting. I was
very confused by that statement.
>> I did not, well, yes, I did say that but it was an email
that was sent to me by one of the members that suggested that
there was the possibility that as a faculty member in a red state
they would be forbidden from participating in DEI activities.
>> Let me say this, this text has a lot of boilerplate. Oh,
this is our goal.
Put in it as the goal has no effect. Doesn't make the work
better or more useful.
We can reframe everything as an opportunity and then it
becomes uncontroversial.
And they say I have a joint appointment with the Vatican, so
the least [inaudible] organization on earth. You know, saying
the goal, the goal is inclusiveness, meh, you don't have to say
it. Saying the goal is inclusiveness does not make an
organization more inclusive?
>> Okay.
>> So those are things we can do if we wanted to. Instead
of phrasing it as DEI. We can say, there are two disabled
people, like, seriously disabled people on this task force.
Seems to me that computing is more accessible than the rest of
physics. Those are opportunities, we just need to say them.
>> I was just going to say this is a general comment. I
think we should figure out how we phrase some of these words.
I'm telling you because we got a lot of push back and real
concerns on using certain trigger words. And unfortunately, DEI
or diversity has become one of those as is identity and other
things. On the other hand, other terms like broadened
participation and workforce development don't.
So I have very strong views myself about this, I have to
say. On the other hand, I'm just doing my duty and letting you
know this has come up?
>> Right. At least one this section was being written, what
I was trying to -- I'm happy if it's either way. When we talk
about workforce development and making effective use of the
entire community, I don't know, that -- we can certainly write
that down, it's entirely noncontroversial and it also seems
pretty watered down.
I will say to Maria, the reason why this committee is the
way it is, is not by accident. It's not because computing
happens to have people from -- places. Because when the
committee was selected, someone spent a lot of time making sure
we had a reasonable balance across all of the kinds of attributes
that we thought. It's not an --
>> Again. I'm not here because I'm female or because I'm
disabled. I'm here because I have an experience that you don't
have. That is not controversial. And you can phrase it in a way
that is non-inclusion. You cannot use the trigger words and say,
okay, you can do computing at a rural college with no money.
That is great, that is red state, I go to South Dakota, everybody
loves physics. South Dakota votes -- is our senator.
>> I agree. These words that you just used, they work very
well. Different perspectives works very well. And so
socioeconomic mixed status and diversity in that works very well.
>> Okay.
>> Rural. Rural. We can make our language more inclusive
as well. That's another way to say it.
>> So are we hearing this needs a, this section needs a kind
of rewrite? If we are, who will do it? And when?
>> I'm offering to scrub it and have it two weeks after the
fact.
>> Sure. I'm happy to help. As I said I'm very conflicted
myself from this. Because I really want to push certain things
there. But I also have learned that it's no point getting
certain people upset and then you got to get them on your side to
help. You know.
>> All right. So action is Maria is going to scrub the
document. And Tulika is going to approve the document.
>> And just for time --
>> I'm not sure of that, but yes, I'll help.
>> Just for timeline information, Tulika, when is the next
EC meeting? The week after next.
>> The next EC meeting, we were going to have it during
DPFino, which is on the 15th I think we were thinking of. The
15th of May during DPF.
>> So that's, well the beginning of that week is the week
after next, right? Next week is -- and then a week off and DPF
'24, right.
>> Next week is CPAD and then DPF.
DPF is the 13th to the 17th of May?
>> Okay. If DPF is going to see this, this has to be done
in the next -- and have some reasonable time to look at it
because people will be busy. Just saying this has to be done in
the next couple of days.
That's true for the whole document, not just for this
section. Right. We have to have -- it will be a draft. And
there will be a lot of proposed changes. But it's good to have,
to eliminate the flash points and other things.
Is that reasonable to ask you guys to do?
>> I'm not objecting.
>> Okay.
We're taking that as a, we're taking that at least as you'll
try hard to do it and we thank you.
>> In the interest of time, maybe we should try to do career
development because it's probably easier. And then we may have
to push communication to another time.
>> Could be a Google type, a Google-doc type of exercise or
something.
>> So let's just do early career development because I think
it's easier. The idea is to help improve the career prospects of
researchers (reading) the overall objective is to improve the
recognition of the S and C contributions. Improve the
recognition they are critical to the success of the physics
program. (reading) career trajectories and opportunities for
professional growth.
So the objectives are to increase the visibility and
prestige of the software and computing contributions. Campaign
to increase the number of stable positions (reading) help
advertise job opportunities in computer science and industry.
Provide career resources for jobs in HEP. Different career
stages and highlight examples of success stories: Recruitment
and training and retention and improvement of opportunities.
Provide arguments and materials for institutes to make the
case for hires like funding models for scientists. Improve the
training and education available for emerging scientists in
software and computing skills.
Facilitate the community discussions to develop pathways for
individuals who have transitioned to industry or other fields to
return to academic or a research position in HE P and.
Having a range of career options is a good tool to recruit
people in software and computing. The first of these is not
controversial, establish recognition and rewards. It's a
powerful tool across career stages. Provide visibility to the
recipients and the recommendation is a tiered-award system. At
the various stages. Determine awards to cover both technical
achievements and contributions with a broader impact to society.
The specific criteria should be able and made available on
advertisements and a website. Provide financial incentives while
ensuring that recognition is the primary goal.
Follow up in five years to assess the reward impacts on the
recipient's career. Giordon?
>> Just quickly. That last bullet point in the section you
just looked at, they had an implement assessment every five
years. Can we not specify every X years and maybe base it on in
terms of, like chairperson terms. Meaning every other
chairperson or something like that.
>> Yep.
>> Every other chair.
Any other comments on this section?
Okay. Promote career development discussions. (reading)
support career growth and help reach full potential. Guidelines
and best practices. Enables knowledge transfer. Improving the
efficiency and cost effectiveness of programs and initiatives.
Career growth. Highlighting new opportunities. And boost
moral and help in the overall engagement and retention.
The recommendations are to organize workshops and forums of
sharing best practices with a focus on computing and software
skills. Guidelines and resources for training programs in
software and computing and emphasizing the importance of these in
research. Establishing joint positions and cross disciplinary
tracks (reading) establish mechanisms to encourage networking
including establishing an alumni network, career fairs, panels,
et cetera. Comments on this section?
It seems, I think it's a little optimistic in many ways.
But I think it's good to have a goal. But this is a systemic
community change which we, the 15 people on this committee may or
may not be able to do. It's good they have a goal.
It's nothing by comparison to the optimism of section 4.3.
So address structural challenges and development of career
pathways involves addressing structural challenges. (reading) to
take into proper consideration technical considerations and
expertise and encourage the collaboration with other disciplines
in industries to provide career opportunities beyond particle
physics. Engage with the funding agencies and research
institutions to highlight the critical role. And lead to stable
career paths in this area.
Advocate for changes in hiring (reading) collaborate with
the scientific disciplines and industries 20 to broaden the
career opportunities for those with expertise in the software and
computing in physics.
And training and education. Given the growing needs for
particle physics experiments and rapidly evolving landscape)
reading) I think in general we probably can shorten all of the
software and competing to S and C. These should address the
needs of different groups of people. People are prior experience
and sharing of knowledge with different groups and programs can
maximize the impact and enable resources to be on important goals
(reading) centralized repository of training and materials.
Promote and support diversity in training programs aiming to
increase participation from underrepresented groups in the field.
Establish connections with minority serving institutions and
other under represented groups.
Work with academic institutions to incorporate software and
computing skills into physics curricula, emphasizing the
importance of modern scientific research.
Giordon, you raised your hand?
>> As you were reading this I got a little confused about
the separation between the section 5 we were just talking about
and I also added in things like supporting diversity and training
programs here. Isn't that supposed to be more in section five
than here? I don't know how we're supposed to split that
overlap.
>> That is one of the reasons I wanted to discuss section
five before the other sections because there are references back
to things that belong in section five.
In this particular area, yes. I think in this particular
area, if we're going to refocus Section 5 as expanding the
workforce and making efficient use of the entire community, that
this, you're right, this section can move into there and that
would be fine.
In which case this becomes more of a technical aspect of
creating a central repository and working with curriculum
changes.
On that, I'm fine with.
Tulika?
>> Yes, I appreciate the point just made. I was realizing
as you read this out, that we have to make it consistent with
section five. And maybe it's better to keep all of it in one
place.
>> I think that would be -- yes, where we think -- focusing
section five, I think the idea, our direction of refocusing
section five makes sense and making sure these -- the sections
that belong there get moved there. I think that makes sense.
>> If you look like in the previous subsection here about
addressing structural challenges, you can even imagine when you
think about, like, if you want to promote early career, you also,
no. Like what you're saying here is to take into account making
sure there is funding available for early career. But you can
make the same about saying that the funding agencies are not
challenged but they have a responsibility to make sure that the
awards they give out are equitable. Not necessarily just early
career but also DEI related. That is a little muddled for me
right now.
>> I think, for instance, that we've been, at least when
this section was written, the section about addressing structural
challenge, it was written with the idea that there was a systemic
problem in the field that contributions in software and computing
are not sufficiently valued as part of the scientific domain.
So the idea was to try to address those. Independent of any
other inequities. The inequity that says it's easier to get a
faculty job if you've done analysis rather than if you've done
reconstruction at the end of the day.
But I think for instance, so in the awards, we've been
pretty, they are technical, intended to be across people's
careers and also intended to be -- to -- careers and technical
achievements but also achievements in other areas but not
technical, they should be defined.
But most of this has not, we've not put things in this
section with the possible exception of this one that should
belong in section five.
>> Why don't we say something like, maybe at the beginning
of this document or at the beginning of even section 4, the
recommendations mentioned here should also follow the guidelines
put forth in section five, for example.
Instead of having to repeat yourself on some level, what you
can do, if we're talking about, say, 4.1, the second bullet,
promote and support divergency and training programs. Maybe you
could just said, you can rephrase that more like, you put the
actual DEI part of that into section five. But just rephrase a
little bit instead. Not getting rid of it but move the DEI
portion to section five to -- then say something like, promote
and support training programs that are equitable to the entire
community on some level. Or something slightly more, just say
the recommendation here is that we provide training programs that
are accessible to every member of the community.
And then you can be more explicit about saying, well, how do
we make sure that we're getting every member of the community.
In section five we say we know people from under represented
groups in the field or under served institutions with less money
have additional report from CPSC to attend programs. That would
be in section five. But this section, four, should just talk
about the need for a training program in the first place. If
that makes sense?
>> Yes. I will make those changes.
Fostering pathways and establishing fellowships or
sabbaticals. Highlight success stories -- who have
significantly -- after returning from industry to serve as models
for reentry programs. Advertising jobs in the communities.
Then the last section is not, it was a set of instructions
basically. Monitoring progress in the area of career development
is critical for the success of the overall effort it helps to
increase the effectiveness of the program. (reading)
implementation of the career development action plan and outlined
goals. Provide annual reports on the statuses and initiatives
and success stories.
Survey the field and provide outcomes on the website.
This is potentially a little more prescriptive than we've
been elsewhere in the document but it does emphasize this is an
important section to us.
Tulika?
>> Not specific to this. But it reminded me of something.
This is HEP. So several places we use HEP. Now, in certain
parts of our community, that is associated with the DEOHEP
program. So at least for the P5 report, I'm reliving that. We
use particle physics throughout. So I just wanted to raise that.
I don't know if it needs to be addressed or not.
>> I think it's -- we're not entirely consistent. We use
HEP and particle physics. I think it would make sense to use
particle physics as the umbrella name of the group. We will do a
global search and replace.
And particle physics we think includes the other frontiers
in a reasonable way?
>> No. I don't think so.
>> Okay.
>> I think that's part of the distinction. I mean, when you
said that, it doesn't include nuclear I would say. Because the
funding is separate. It doesn't include all of astrophysics.
>> Right. It includes -- basically, I'm saying this is from
the P5. The P5 consistently talks about particle physics. It
addresses the cosmic frontier but not particle physics.
>> Someone have a better --
>> I think we should go through it and whenever it looks
like particle physics will do the deed, convey the meaning,
that's fine. In some cases its needs to be HEP because of
connection to some specific source. We will use that, is that
okay?
In other words, we'll try to get rid of it.
>> You know, it is more confusing because in Europe, I was
just having this conversation this morning, astro, particle,
astronomy, all of that is lumped together and it's explicitly not
HEP.
>> Right. So as I said, let's just, when we read it through
again and edit it, let's try to use particle physics wherever we
think that is clear enough. If there is a reason to use HEP or
another qualifier or a list, we'll have to just put it in.
Because it is so confusing.
>> I think everything -- don't you at the end of the day.
It's like, go photon is a particle, we're looking at the whole
thing.
>> Giordon?
>> Can we not just rely on what DPF uses. My assumption
here for this, this is technically under DPF. Can we just say,
when we said, HEP or put a disclaimer at the beginning, HEP or
DPF community member refers to anybody that, A, is affiliated
with DPF falls into this document. And leave the clarification
of who belongs in that DPF -- rather than up to this committee.
>> Okay. You know there is overlapping membership in APS
all the way through. And DPF does not include in principle
anything that is included in the division of astrophysics.
In principle, I think.
Now in practice that is not the way we look at it.
I think that's a correct statement. Tulika, can help me
out?
>> Yes. I think that's a correct statement. It is, it can
be rather confusing, yes, the way this all works out.
>> All right. I think the point is made that we will just
try our best.
>> We may, and a sentence earlier in the document explaining
what our intentions were would probably go a long way.
>> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> So yes, and I -- with monitoring and reporting the only
proposed change I would make to 4.6 is add recommendations
because that makes its consistent with the other things we've
done. It's a recommendation. Rather than a specific, what -- it
has to be done this way.
So I propose to add a recommendations section there.
Okay. So to recap:
We didn't go through the introduction but I think that's
people read it, it's a lot of this comes from other documents so
I think it's okay.
We went through the governance section and have some
corrections to make but in general we're not too far from having
that be reasonable, done.
We did not cover communications and partnerships. Probably
don't have time to do that in 8 minutes.
>> Can I, I just wrote that this past weekend.
>> Shall we go through it quickly then.
>> I just wonder if any of it is controversial? All I did
was add what you said, an introductory paragraph about the kind
of -- that kind of tried to match the objectives. If people
think I didn't quite do that, then --
>> Let's take five minutes and go through it. So the idea
of communications and partnerships was the objectives were to
encourage and facilitate strategic partnerships (reading) improve
internal communication. (reading) Make CPSC a valuable resource
for the community and funding -- working groups and consensus
building. Strengthen interactions with industry.
Advocate for support and development of public data and
software repositories to make HEP research more accessible.
The primary recommendation is the CPSC should organize an
annual workshop to focus on community building, technology and
skill transfer, career and networking and showcasing the panel's
activities. The workshop is open to all its stakeholders ... We
should probably move it physically into the implementation and
strategy section. The section in bold when we reiterate that
section and otherwise it's okay.
Verena, go ahead?
>> Hi, I made a note on the chat earlier. I was wondering
if it would be good to add a point about supporting outreach.
Kind of like awareness among the broader public of the -- aspect
of science. I don't know if that's what's specifically -- what
about that. But clearly that would be generally something that
would be good to support.
>> I think proposed to address that by adding an objective
to communications and partnerships. That was more outward
focused.
About outreach and community engagement.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> I think it's a good idea. We'll just add it as an
objective.
So there was some specific comments in this section about
whether board of a feather meeting -- I said organize forums on
relevant topics. Convene expert panels. Technology advancement.
(reading) promote strategic link as a trail (reading) handling
large datasets.
Spelling error. Create a directory of potential partners
across city and academia fields. Use the CPSC meeting to have
potential partners. Most meetings as needed. On going projects
and discuss emerging technologies and develop a proposed template
and support mechanisms for HEP partners.
This we talk about engagement in the various, in the HEP
community. So Snowmass, HSF.
Yeah?
>> I'm just seeing this here. This is maybe a bit detailed.
It says HEP and other volunteer efforts or something. IRIS HEP
is a funded institute. Isn't it? It's an NSF funded.
>> You're right. I didn't -- I kind of meant and others who
are volunteer efforts.
>> I see.
>> So I guess I didn't phrase that right. Sorry.
>> And I wonder if for instance, like with things like IRIS
HEP if you put that, are you -- do you need to put A3D3 which is
the machine learning focused one from NSF. Thanks to NSF
supported projects and other volunteer efforts might -- then you
don't have to specify it. In that case, Liz, change it to thanks
to NSF supported activities and volunteer efforts.
>> Yes. Without the other.
>> Without the other, I think that's clear.
>> That's fine. Yes.
>> Let me just ask the obvious. If you say projects like
NSF, and other volunteers, DOE does nothing in this respect?
They would not be upset by it not saying --
>> Offer computing, one, it's called HEP CCE. But the focus
has never been on building community. Right. So this is
enhanced communication within the HEP community. That's the sub
heading.
You know, IRIS HEP funded the community white paper effort
in 2018. It sponsored all the workshops and provided people who
paid for people who were organizers. It did a lot of things to
promote community.
And that's why it is mentioned here. I'm okay with taking
that out but I wouldn't add DOE's CCE project because it
really -- that's not what it was trying to do. TVs not trying to
build community. In fact, it's still a closed community if you
ask me?
>> The reference to DOE is in 3.5, is that right?
>> 3.5, I might as well, I might have done that. Yes.
>> Leverage industry interactions.
>> Yes.
>> Whatever that's numbered now.
>> Yes, yes. In fact, HEP CCE's focus has been on getting
the HPC centers that DOE is already paying for usable by the
scientific community. So whereas what they want -- what DOE
wanted to focus on was, you know, these big computing facilities
helping experiments to use them. NSF was more about community
building.
>> I understand the distinction. That's fine. I think you
can defend it. They may ask that of one of us. All right.
Let's go on.
>> Can I just jump in here I actually wanted to reiterate
what Liz just said about HEP CC really not helping much with the
community. This came up in a lot of recent discussions and the
question I have is should we perhaps say something such that such
initiatives do a better job of engaging. This is a lab-driven
enterprise but they should perhaps engage with universities that
bring in grad students and others.
I think there could be an improvement there and I don't know
if we have a way of emphasizing that?
>> Verena?
>> I just want to say that HEP CC has been reviewed and such
recommendations have been made for what it's worth. [laughing].
>> I was going to say that sounds familiar.
>> Jeremy is well aware of this. Anyways, it doesn't matter
but just to point out. Sorry.
>> Thanks, maybe we should just leave it the way it is.
>> HEP is a project. I don't think this document is where
we provide feedback on how projects are being run. But that's
just me.
>> It is 5 o'clock. We've been at this for 2 hours. I
think we're going to, like, we will lose our.
>> Captioner.
>> Yes. Captioner, yes.
I guess what I would -- Matt, go ahead, Matthew?
>> I may have interrupted you just as you're about to
address this. In the final section, what is it 6 or something,
that where you split things into the implementation strategies
and mentioned that there should be some significant revisions
here. So to make sure that we actually address those, I don't
want to go over, you know, the text itself. But can you make
some broad comments on the kind of general directions so that
myself and others can start revising it?
>> Yes, I think the idea of this section.
>> Thank you for the revisions that you already did.
>> Oh. I think the idea of this section was to expand it a
bit and to have it be some recommendations for how we want to
achieve the goals. A section here would be about the annual
meeting. There would be a section about the, I think the
facilitation of a establishment of technical working groups. Is
there, instead of talking about it from a standpoint of
communicating technical directions, it would be more along the
lines of communication within the field, from the section above.
If there are specific recommendations for training that we
can summarize from the previous sections. I think implementation
is a lot where the actions are going. Whether it's the formation
of the annual meeting, the communications about systemic change
in career development, formation of technical working groups to
improve communications. All of those. I'm happy to take a stab
at some of those as an outline. And we can try to fill it in
together if that makes sense?
>> Yes. Thank you very much.
>> So I, one other thing, I think you should also lean on
things that are relatively new like town halls. Those are easy
to make and not expensive and they're a way to reach out to a lot
of people and it may be obvious, but I think just putting it in
here is good.
Obviously, there is going to be a website of some kind,
right?
>> Yep.
>> As an implementation. We have mentioned several surveys.
>> Yes. I think the surveys and all those things should be
basically summarized. And then it will be, I think we should,
you can use the language that it's a recommendation rather than a
set of -- a cookbook.
Okay. And given that, I think what would be nice is to work
on the document over the course of the next several days with the
idea of having a checkpoint on, say, Monday. Which would be
virtual. And then with the idea that we should have a share able
text by Thursday.
>> At this point, we're just sharing it with the EC, right?
>> Yes. So far.
>> Telling them not to publish it. It's not going to be
seen by CPAC.
>> No.
>> With some luck it might be given to them -- say at the
time of DPF '24.
>> Yes. And that meeting will be, I think will be mostly
about headings and the concepts that are in the report rather
than necessarily the final thing.
>> Right. So you know, I have this status update for HEPAC.
Which I will just say how far we've come and show the table of
contents. And maybe some highlights which I will send to you
before I do it, obviously.
And enough time for you to comment on it. And it's 15
minutes, they will need to, since they haven't thought about this
since December, they will probably need some, back a little,
summary of background and mainly our status in the report.
And the statement that they'll get it soon. A little late
but not too late as these things go, I would say we're doing
okay.
And Ian will pick this up as '24?
>> I think we should, I guess we will meet as planned in two
weeks.
Where we might have a -- it may be the final report.
Make sense?
>> I think so.
>> All right. Very good.
Okay. Have a good weekend everyone. Thanks in advance to
anyone who will be writing.
>> Okay.
>> Bye.
>> Bye.
>> Bye.
Thank you. Bye.