Task Force Plenary - 05-23-2024
Captioned By: White Coat Captioning
>> Just to say that some people are still joining, I had to send them
a Zoom link.
>> IAN FISK: I'm sorry, Giordon, could you repeat? Giordon broke up
for me.
>> CHARLES LEGGETT: He was very garbled towards the end.
>> I was just saying I sent some people the Zoom link.
>> IAN FISK: Oh, okay. Did they not get it from the calendar update?
>> I did, I was just having on my own personal end some difficulties
with my calendar.
>> I will say oddly my calendar didn't have it, I had to get it from
the email, I'm not sure why.
>> IAN FISK: Sorry about that. Okay. Let's get started. We're.
Let's get started. Some people have said yes, a lot of people said no. I
always check to make sure I'm not missing any frantic emails from anybody.
That seems not to be the case. Okay. So the purpose of today's meeting is
to go -- we have two -- we essentially hopefully have two meetings left.
We have this meeting and we have a meeting next week.
And the idea is to -- at this meeting is to go through the two
sections that I know that we haven't covered at all, and then to have a
discussion about what needs to be fixed and improved with the idea being
that at the following meeting next week, we can get sort of final -- we can
agree that we have a distributable draft and we might need to address
feedback at another meeting but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
Are there any questions about that? Seems not to be the case. So
let's share my screen. So to the best of my knowledge, the sections that
we have not covered at all were sections 5 and 6. Just as a quick recap,
we spent a lot of time two weeks ago covering the section on basically the
CPSC and governance.
I believe that the changes that were requested and we agreed to ended
up in the document. Some of these things didn't have a lot of comments.
And then I think we covered communications and partnerships. Again, there
was not -- there wasn't a ton of updates in this section.
And then --
>> JAN STRUBE: So a quick comment on that one. I thought we wanted to
change some of the structure. And so I was a bit unsure which direction --
if I remember this correctly, like before or after. So I thought with the
workshops -- or is it its own subsection? Is that something we wanted to
subsume somewhere else?
>> IAN FISK: Well, there's an implementation strategy that includes
workshops, I think. And --
>> JAN STRUBE: Right.
>> IAN FISK: I think the change that we wanted to make was we wanted
to make sure that when we reference workshops, that we maybe referred later
to a description later in the document. And I suppose we should go through
and make sure that that's the case. Is that the change you were thinking
of?
>> JAN STRUBE: Yes, I think that's right.
>> IAN FISK: Yeah, it's possible that has not -- the workshop section
has been filled out later but we should go through and make sure that when
we reference workshops, that we also cite that it will be described later
in the document.
>> JAN STRUBE: Okay, that's good. I can make that change. I was just
unsure which direction.
>> IAN FISK: That would be perfect.
>> JAN STRUBE: I will do that. Thanks.
>> IAN FISK: Anything else? Okay. Let's see. Continuing down,
awards, then career development discussions, address structural challenges,
training, monitor reporting. Section 5 has gone through a lot of revisions
and probably still needs some more. So I think we can probably spend some
amount of time on this.
This is the section that used to be called DEI or used to be called a
variety of other things. At the moment it is called improving
representation in software and computing. And basically the first is a
motivation paragraph about why we're doing this, which is the most
innovative solutions are developed by teams with diverse viewpoints.
Computing and software tends to be the most diverse, there are more
opportunities for diversification across universities, the cost of entry is
lower, requires less equipment. Currently software activities are in
general less well-represented even in other areas of physics, this is
intended to make progress in this area.
So the objective is to foster a diverse, equitable, and inclusive
environment within CPSC and the broader community and to ensure the most
innovative, problem-solving teams and maximize the participation of the
entire potential workforce.
And then the goals are to increase representation, ensure the CPSC and
computational roles represent diverse backgrounds including race, gender,
first immigration scholars, and socioeconomic backgrounds. I would like to
return to this section. I'm not sure if we want a more complete list or a
less complete list. I think the problem with complete list is they're
frequently incomplete. So I don't know if we want to sort of spell
everything out or simply say diverse background.
Equity, improve the pipeline to address systematic barriers that limit
advancement in competing roles, and creating an environment where all
members feel valued and can reach their full potential. The entire
community benefits from more creativity and innovation. The CPSC can track
progress and influence training and engage the full potential workforce.
Then there's a section on recommendations. Conduct a comprehensive
survey, develop a survey to gather detailed demographics to understand the
current situation or to address systematic barriers, improve access to
training and access to data, this can probably use a little more text than
just that, remote work and flexibility, emphasize documents and publicize
the concept that software and computing is a subfield that can effectively
be performed in teams.
This increases the potential of participation by -- develop training
programs across the entire professional cycle including at the high school
and undergraduate levels to increase the overall technical competence of
the community and improve the pipeline of talent. Work to make sure
training programs are universally -- this was a pretty heavy edit of what
was there before that specified specific changes about improving access to
nonresidents, instead it just made things universal available.
Encourage the use of software, promote the availability of public data
and software to make computational science more accessible worldwide.
Identify increasing representation as both a collective responsibility and
a community opportunity. So ensure the efforts to improve that
representation embedded -- ensure the efforts to improve representation are
embedded in the CPSC framework and not siloed into subcommittees which
involves integrating improvements [indiscernible], increase participation
and commitment to improving representation to cross all members and
stakeholders actively seeking volunteers to contribute to initiatives to
prevent the burden falling on those affected by inequities, monitor
reporting, establish [indiscernible] toward representation including
biennial surveys and reports, collaborate with the DEI efforts of the
experiments, computing conferences and workshops, community software
projects and the labs and the university work towards common goals that's
the only reference to DEI in the entire document it simply is acknowledging
there are groups that have specific programs. This activity -- these
activities seek to increase representation by addressing systematic
barriers and fostering a culture of innovation which recognize the value of
diverse viewpoints and experience through targeted actions and ongoing
evaluation the CPSC should aim to make computational roles that have more
accessible and welcoming to a diverse range of talents and backgrounds.
That's the text as currently written. I'm sure there are comments.
There's a hand up someplace but I don't see it. Sorry.
>> MARIA ELENA: Yes, I'm dealing with a medical situation, I wanted to
say thank you for your work in this section. I think that, one, I think
that we may want to highlight a bit the low barrier entrance due to cost
which I think we lost in the [indiscernible] between the Google Doc and
here.
>> IAN FISK: There's something in the introduction about --
>> MARIA ELENA: -- yeah.
>>
>> IAN FISK: This section here?
>> MARIA ELENA: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
>> IAN FISK: We can emphasize that more if you like.
>> MARIA ELENA: Yeah, I was wondering if that should be -- maybe say
more involved, like we're still saying that there's equitable -- maybe I
can make a few comments offline, this is very cosmetic, actually.
>> IAN FISK: Okay. Please feel free to edit directly.
>> MARIA ELENA: Okay. Thank you.
>> IAN FISK: There were a couple of things I noticed -- there are some
cosmetic improvements, there's also some spacing, also I think section 5.2
can be fleshed out a little bit. But yeah. Steve?
>> STEVEN GOTTLIEB: It's kind of a minor point, regarding the phrase
"increasing representation," I kind of liked the phrase "widen
representation." I wonder how people feel about that.
>> IAN FISK: Instead of -- okay.
>> PETER BOYLE: I like that.
>> IAN FISK: Okay. Maria Elena, shall I make that or will that go
into yours?
>> MARIA ELENA: That's all right, I was just going to say the
systematic barriers is maybe where we're at, rural communities, low cost of
investment, et cetera. I want to call out that specifically to make it
broader, which I think is something we discussed a couple of weeks ago,
[indiscernible] comment and looking at it right now.
>> IAN FISK: Okay. In terms of Steve's comment, I think widen
representation would be fine. Peter?
>> PETER BOYLE: Yeah, I wondered whether we should mention something
like leveraging existing training programs of various types, so both
industry-driven, so Nvidia does Hackathons, Intel does several types of
events, and also the ASCAR site trainings that exist, there's a lot of
essentially free to access material and programs. It was a bit of
organization at the community level, we could get teams submitted.
>> IAN FISK: Yeah, I think we can add that to section 5.4. Instead of
develop programs, we can harness programs.
>> PETER BOYLE: Develop and/or harness. The point is there's a lot of
engagement there from the computing industry, if only we reach out and make
use of it. I think with a bit of awareness of this and so on, we could do
quite a lot with it, quite effectively.
>> IAN FISK: Great. Other comments about this section? We have a
little bit of editing but that's not so bad. Implementation strategies is
another section that has grown. It's been a couple of things over the
course of the document. It is now settled on implementation strategies as
a name. CPSC can be a resource to help identify and develop consensus on
strategic directions and software computing and to communicate -- I believe
that that is actually the introductory paragraph to the different section.
That needs to be fixed.
First thing, we need to fix that. So -- yes. All right. So
unfortunately this whole first paragraph needs to be redone. So I believe
that the following sections are actually -- the idea of the implementation
strategies was to describe things we thought would be useful to meet the
other goals that are listed in the report. So the first of these was
facilitate and establish working groups [indiscernible] training, research
and development, input across labs, groups and other relevant entities.
It's imagined that the technical working groups primarily define
interesting strategic directions which is then used to help justify
technical areas. Possible areas of TWG groups are newer architectures and
techniques, directions in energy efficient usage and efficiency, new
program language and life cycle support for software. It is recommended
that CPSC form working groups that adhere to the following themes and
provide the suggested deliverables. So establishing [indiscernible] task
force, format focused task force with specific topics to explore and
finalize their findings with a deliverable of a report document, the task
force should be goal oriented, have a [indiscernible] one to two years to
influence the directions and strategy, limit the number of simultaneous
operating technical working groups to maintain manageability and
effectiveness, subset groups that have accomplished their goals and if
necessary establish new groups. Think it should be sunset, not subset, I
believe, on section -- page 15.
Aim to -- we're having five working groups operating at a given time.
Technical topics for these groups should be chosen by the CPSC with an
awareness that piece areas are likely to evolve. Communication and meeting
strategies, utilize the variety of communication mechanisms such as
meetings, town halls, town halls, training sessions, leverage technical
working groups as platforms for facilitating communications across
different entities and provide targeted training and input on R&D needs,
external involvement in advisory panels, encourage membership and
leadership from outside the CPSC to range of inputs to augment
[indiscernible] given the diverse and numerous technical topics the
community wants to address, emphasize the creation of focused goal oriented
tasks that can generate clear, concise reports, ensure [indiscernible] task
forces should aim to produce documents or recommendations that will assist
the funding agencies in considering whether to allocate resources
effectively toward creating critical research areas for discussions avoid
duplications of effort, this could involve sharing insights and outcomes to
enrich the community's understanding and actions. Special consideration as
with all aspects of CPSC pay attention to the DEI considerations and all
technical advisory groups, section 5 for further considerations. And then
in the next -- our like -- section 6.1, section 6.2 is conduct an annual
meeting for all stakeholders in software computing, will be one of the
highest professional activities of the CPSC and also an opportunity to
advance networking and career development, [indiscernible] priorities and
trends, [indiscernible] and making awards, information [indiscernible]
training and education.
The next is conduct virtual town meetings. Virtual town meetings have
proved themselves to be an inexpensive [indiscernible] during the pandemic.
Entirely virtual town meetings do not art officially advantage voices that
can't afford to travel [indiscernible] regularly when soliciting feedback
from the community. Appoint advisers and consultants. The CPSC should not
be found by the efforts of the 15 members to execute admission. Advisers
and consultants should be engaged when the committee decides additional
effort is needed and that should be decided -- develop and support
communication tools for software computing. These would include websites
and communications and discussion forums such as slack, the [indiscernible]
provided by TPF, and create awards and prices to honor contributions in
software computing [indiscernible] to retain the strongest people while
awards condition provide [indiscernible] for free they often have more
impacts with even small amounts of money software computing has strong ties
to industry and [indiscernible] should investigate some level of award
sponsorship.
And that's I think in some way, like I think one obvious thing --
there are two obvious glaring things in this document that need to be
fixed. One is the introduction needs to be redone and the second is we
might want to rebalance judgment the amount of weight we spent on technical
working groups versus other kinds of implementation strategies. But
Giordon, your hand is up.
>> GIORDON STARK: Just a quick question. You talk about things such
as, you know, developing a communication tool. Do we now want to actually
emphasize that these tools need to be accessible?
>> IAN FISK: Okay.
>> GIORDON STARK: They need to be screen reader friendly and things
like that. Like for example if you look at the example from ATLAS, or CERN
as a whole, CERN was making a decision two or three years ago to migrate
from video to Zoom. And one of the considerations was whether Zoom was
more accessible for people using screen readers, or accessible
communication technologies over video. And that was one of the positions
that CERN took into account to migrate to that communication platform.
>> IAN FISK: Okay, good point. I will put that in. That's an easy
change. Matthew.
>> MATTHEW FEICKERT: So this is I think something I'm actually
responsible for. As you're reading through section 6.1, at the very end
there's special considerations, and in there we have that the segment
including DEI considerations and since we went through in section 5 and
made a big effort to explicitly remove the phrase DEI, it would probably be
bad to leave that in for section 6.
>> IAN FISK: I was thinking the same --
>> MATTHEW FEICKERT: I think I'm responsible for adding that in that
sentence so I should fix that. Although section 5 for further
considerations, I think that's still fine to leave in.
>> IAN FISK: Right. I think actually if we remove the sub -- the
clause and say, as with all aspects of the CPSC, pay attention to inclusion
of diverse perspectives of all technical and advisory groups, that's
probably sufficient, right?
>> MATTHEW FEICKERT: Okay. I'll do it in real time right now. And
then also one other small thing. Let's see. So -- sorry, I lost it on the
screen. Okay. Yeah, section 6.4, the CPSC should not feel bound by only
the efforts of the 15 committee members. I forget, is this number, is this
integer number of members, is this fixed? Or is this something that we
should remove the number and just say committee members?
>> IAN FISK: I'm happy with either, because I don't think we need to
specify the number twice. I do believe -- I think it does -- I think
someplace in here it does say 15.
>> JOEL BUTLER: It certainly does, in section 2. I think it should be
reiterated. We have to have some number or people will just make up stuff
in the first round and then it will be made up forever. So we debated
this, and --
>> MATTHEW FEICKERT: Sounds good.
>> JOEL BUTLER: You can say it again or not.
>> IAN FISK: I think it's fine. As long as -- if we ever have to
change it, we have to change it twice. But --
>> MATTHEW FEICKERT: Yeah, I think that's fine. Thank you.
>> IAN FISK: Is there anything else on this section? I will do a
couple of things. I will do a cleanup of the intro. And I may do sort
of -- I may do a bit of a simplification. I think some editing of this
section, I think there's a little bit of -- there's a few places that
things are repeated, so we may do a little cleanup there.
Does anyone have any -- are there things that people think are missing
from section 2 of the annual meeting? And I do -- I think CPAD, I think,
Joel, they meet for a week, is that true?
>> JOEL BUTLER: I believe so. At least four days. But I think it's
almost a week.
>> IAN FISK: Feels like a week.
>> JOEL BUTLER: I'll --
>> IAN FISK: We're not very prescriptive about where it should be.
And we're also -- we talk about town halls and the benefits of those. We
talk about accessibility and the benefit, and the need to be consistent
with that. We don't -- it doesn't specify it's in person. I don't know if
we want to specify that we should make sure that people can participant
remotely.
My impression of the CPAD meeting is that it's typically been in
person. Because it predates sort of hybrid conferences. But I don't know
that. Maria Elena.
>> MARIA ELENA: We published a paper on accessibility for events
during Snowmass. So maybe just cite that one and say this is how the
meeting should be done. There are prescriptions on how to do hybrid, how
to do cost. It's very broad, it's a 30-page thing, it has a lot of stuff.
Maybe instead of repeating everything.
>> IAN FISK: Do you have a citation for that we could use?
>> MARIA ELENA: Yeah, do you want me to post it in the chat right now?
>> IAN FISK: Or type it into the -- either one, the chat now or put it
just as a parentheses in the thing and we'll get it cited properly, in the
overview. Charles?
>> CHARLES LEGGETT: So when CPAD was created, I don't think people
understood the direction that remote work was going to go. And I think we
have the same issues right now. We don't know what technology is going to
be like for a meeting in ten years. So I think it would be better not to
be very prescriptive and rather say, you know, we say something along the
lines of, make it accessible to all. Something more generic than saying,
you know, ensure remote access or in-person or virtual or whatever, because
we don't know what it's going to be like.
>> IAN FISK: Sure. Okay.
>> MARIA ELENA: That's part of how we wrote this paper, which was
very, very, very -- I'm not going to say vague, but flexible in terms of
technology. What do we want the citation -- I'm sorry, I got lost here.
>> IAN FISK: I think if we put a sentence at the end of 6.2 that says,
the meeting should be consistent with best practices on accessibility as
defined by citation X, that might be sufficient.
>> MARIA ELENA: Yep, sounds great.
>> IAN FISK: Okay. If there's nothing else here, Joel and I were
having a discussion this week about what the concluding remarks should be,
and one idea we had, which we float here before it gets fleshed out, is
that the conclusion might be sort of what we think the next steps are going
to be.
And so at some point we are concluding by saying this is like -- there
will be a small paragraph, this is the recommendation of the foundation
task force in terms of the committee that should be formed and the foci
they should have. And then it is our expectation that these are the next
steps. And one of those is going to be the document is reviewed by the
DPF.
The other is that the initial members of the committee will be
identified. And maybe we can have sort of a rough schedule of sort of when
people might start their work. My hope is that given that it's the end of
May, that by -- on the academic calendar, people should be seeking
nominations for the fall term. And so there would be basically a sort of a
recommended timeline moving forward.
And that might be all. There's not a lot of -- there's not a lot of
other things that we need to include. It's not a terribly long report, we
probably don't need to sort of like repeat a lot of the points except to
sort of say that what we've done and what we expect to have done next, are
there comments on the strategy?
You like it, you don't like it, you don't care? Okay. Or you can't
hear me anymore?
>> MATTHEW FEICKERT: No, we can still hear you.
>> IAN FISK: Then I will assume "don't care." Then there's an
acknowledgement section here. So we would like to thank the computational
frontier of Snowmass 2020 community study from posing the CPSC and giving
it a high priority the DPF executive committee for their support of this
task force we also thank the high energy physics advisory panel for the
interest in our work received excellent advice in the creation and
operation according to panel for advanced detectors from Professor Ann
Shipcy, Oxford, Dr. March tell, oakridge, Dr. Merkel, Fermilab, Dr. --
>> JOEL BUTLER: Marsisky is what it should say.
>> IAN FISK: And Dr. Jeremy Lowe, USDOE. Finally, the frontier for
providing their vision to the CPSC. Maria Elena.
>> MARIA ELENA: I don't see at least the participants anywhere. Are
you going to make offers in the beginning?
>> IAN FISK: I think that was the plan. When this has been presented
a couple of times there is a -- we have the list of authors that's always
presented in the document. So I think we will put that here at the
beginning, as the -- go ahead.
>> JOEL BUTLER: So this document authors an appendix, that was mainly
there to get the list somewhere in the draft documents. We can put them in
the front. I think we should take the authors out of the sections, simply
because it's awkward and doesn't reflect who participated in discussions.
>> IAN FISK: That's definitely on the list of things to do, is to
clean that out.
>> PETER BOYLE: Can I make a recommendation? I think having section
listings, I agree completely, is breaking kind of collective responsibility
for the document. I think that having all the authors at the front makes
sense. And I normally in these things only add people at the front once
they give an explicit okay that they agree with the document.
>> IAN FISK: Yes.
>> JOEL BUTLER: Sure, yeah.
>> IAN FISK: I think the -- at our final -- we don't have great
participation today. In our final meeting next week, we will -- anyone
who's not there, we'll make sure they have signed off before we put their
name on things. Maria Elena?
>> MARIA ELENA: We're still stuck with the bad name. I think we
should recommend picking a better name in our conclusions somewhere.
>> IAN FISK: That's presented frequently in the -- when this has been
presented publicly as an activity. The idea of a naming contest is always
brought up. But I think that that would be a reasonable thing to put in
the concluding remarks, which is in the next steps, which is some section
about the CPSC has always been as a working title, and that there should be
some sort of a carnival-Luke atmosphere to choose a new name.
>> JOEL BUTLER: This is Joel. It actually does appear as a footnote
in the document, right at the beginning, it says CPSC is only a temporary
name for this panel, once the panel is announced, there will be a
competition for the most suitable permanent name. We could put that in the
[indiscernible] if you want as a reminder.
>> IAN FISK: Let's move it to the concluding remarks section.
>> JOEL BUTLER: I think we should leave it as a footnote, at the
beginning.
>> IAN FISK: Sure, but also repeat it at the end.
>> JOEL BUTLER: And repeat it, yes. That would be great.
>> IAN FISK: I would like to take some small amount of credit for
being able to -- if people remember the first meeting, I tripped over CPSC
many times and now it just flows off the tongue.
>> CHARLES LEGGETT: I kind of liked it, frankly.
>> MARIA ELENA: I can see we're trying to be inclusive to people that
are foreign born.
>> IAN FISK: Okay, agreed.
>> MARIA ELENA: There have to be a little more vowels in our stuff.
>> IAN FISK: All right.
>> JOEL BUTLER: I had rearranged it so I could pronounce it CS -- how
did I do that? CSCP rather than PC. I think all the letters are there. I
wouldn't choose that either. I never win these competitions. You don't
want to go with me.
>> IAN FISK: All right. That was the acknowledgement. Then there's
some reference there to citations, there will be a few more. We do have an
acronym section. I don't know that there's anything missing. But if there
is, people -- like we -- this is like -- these are useful. And then --
this is where I move into the -- we're going to move this section into the
front.
And then we have an appendix B, initial thoughts on [indiscernible]
CPSC. Joel, I'm not 100% sure where this came from.
>> JOEL BUTLER: What are we looking at?
>> IAN FISK: Appendix B.
>> JOEL BUTLER: Okay, that has the -- that's a file, right?
>> IAN FISK: It's initial thoughts on the modification of the --
>> JOEL BUTLER: Yeah, yeah. I actually was working on that and I
actually have been doing a bad thing by slightly changing it. But we were
asked by -- we offered -- we asked the DPF whether they wanted to draft
this or whether they wanted us to draft it. They chose the path of least
resistance for them and asked us to draft it.
>> IAN FISK: Okay.
>> JOEL BUTLER: So what is there now is -- so there's one paragraph in
the bylaws. And if you look at what it says now, if you do a refresh or
something, I put this in just before the meeting, so I don't know if you
have it, you have to look at bylaws, or recompile the whole thing, if you
recompile the whole thing, you'll see it, I guess.
>> IAN FISK: Okay.
>> JOEL BUTLER: And it says that -- at the beginning it says, we were
requested by the DPFEC to make an initial disclosure to the bylaws to
describe the CPSC. This will appear in the bylaws in the section appointed
committees. Which includes brief subscriptions of [indiscernible]
committees, nominating committee program program committee fellowship
committee and the coordinated panel for advanced detectors. The CPSC will
be the fifth standing unit committee.
So unit is DPF is [indiscernible] APS. And so this is not an APS wide
committee. It is a unit committee of DPF. And then what CPAD had was a
briefer discussion than we have of the way the number of members, the way
the members are chosen, and then what the thing does.
And what the thing does, I put in the Snowmass, first statement about
what the panel is, and then there's a paragraph that has a piece that
hasn't yet been rewritten, it says newly appointed members -- oops, that's
not right, that's left over. It should start, methods for achieving these
goals include organization of annual topical meetings, establishment of
technical working groups to study recommendations. So these are things
that were -- are supposed to be things in our implementation section.
But it's not always correct because this was written before --
originally written before that. So that would cover it. It may be too
long or may not be exactly what they want. But we're only offering them
something that they can back up.
>> IAN FISK: Sure, okay. Seems consistent with the rest of the
document.
>> JOEL BUTLER: We were not thinking of the vice chair as someone that
automatically succeeded the chair, although that's something that you might
want to discuss. But the advantage of not doing that is whoever is the
vice chair will get some experience, and then you're not stuck with them.
But you could use that as an advantage that they would have. To become the
next chair. Maybe you want to discuss that. I don't have too strong an
opinion on that.
That's really for section 2. We left it the way it was.
>> IAN FISK: Great. Is this consistent, is this vice chair language
that's written here consistent with what we have further up in the
document?
>> JOEL BUTLER: I think I actually copied it, yes.
>> IAN FISK: Okay.
>> JOEL BUTLER: And it's a little bit peculiar, right? It makes it
kind of a funny position, right?
>> IAN FISK: Right. Don't we define the concept of the deputy chair
as defined by the chair?
>> JOEL BUTLER: Pardon me, it should be deputy chair here, I'm sorry.
That's left over from CPAD.
>> IAN FISK: Okay. I'm just wondering --
>> JOEL BUTLER: It should be deputy chair.
>> IAN FISK: Right, but we, for instance, say the chairperson in
consultation with [indiscernible] will choose from among the panel members
a deputy [indiscernible] responsibility to substitute. We don't say
anything about them becoming automatically the next chair.
>> JOEL BUTLER: Because at the time we wrote this, we had a brief
discussion, not a very deep one. And decided not to do that.
>> IAN FISK: Okay. Then we should take that out of the bylaws
section?
>> JOEL BUTLER: I'm now confused, maybe I'm -- so what does it say?
Chairperson will propose one member to serve as their deputy to substitute
if they become unavailable and to otherwise assist the chairperson in tasks
they may choose to delegate.
>> IAN FISK: Then deputy serves at the pleasure of the chairperson
[indiscernible] chairperson's term of service end.
>> JOEL BUTLER: It doesn't actually say that in the bylaws but it says
that in the original.
>> IAN FISK: My concern is the bylaws say something very different.
>> JOEL BUTLER: What do you think it says? Maybe you don't have
the --
>> IAN FISK: The bylaws, it says --
>> JOEL BUTLER: Okay, I know what happened.
>> IAN FISK: In the bylaws it says the newly appointed member of the
CPSC chair must serve first at vice chair.
>> JOEL BUTLER: Okay, that's stale. The chair concept is a DPF
concept -- a [indiscernible] concept, not a DPF concept.
>> IAN FISK: Right. My only concern is we either -- if I was to merge
these two together, the chair would be choosing their own successor, which
I think is probably not what we want.
>> JOEL BUTLER: Right. And there's some words in there that are
somehow -- I'm a little confused. So the first time a deputy is mentioned
in the text that I have, and remember, there's -- you know, this isn't
bylaws.text, but I recompiled it and I think it recompiles with the new
text. What am I missing here? I'm sorry, I'm probably doing something
wrong here.
>> IAN FISK: Maria Elena, you've had your hand up for a while, go
ahead.
>> MARIA ELENA: This conversation is making me a little nervous in
terms of are we being overly prescriptive of how this group is going to --
>> JOEL BUTLER: So we discussed this, I would say no, but obviously --
I mean, we don't want this group to become a group -- based on CPAD -- CPAD
benefitted by having a very stable management for several years and by
pigging really great people with huge experience to make it happen.
So if you want this to succeed, that's a good model to follow.
>> MARIA ELENA: But did they figure it out or somebody else told them
what to do?
>> JOEL BUTLER: Well, okay. I mean, a bunch of people told them what
to do. And then some of those people constituted themselves to do it.
Basically. I mean, it was set up very, very carefully, let me put it that
way. And it was guaranteed that they would have certain people to lead it
who were the people who pushed the initial agenda. The initial
formulation, the document that you saw, if you like.
And that gave them up in leadership to get the thing launched. And
then after that, it became a little bit, let's say, less structured, I
would say.
>> MARIA ELENA: That's not exactly what I'm asking. I'm saying, if
the group that comes up doing it, which may or may not be the same as the
group that is here, doesn't like it, they're going to spend the first year
redoing the bylaws, which may not be the ideal outcome.
>> JOEL BUTLER: Well, frankly, what I'm trying to say is, we're
supposed to get it right. And then whoever picks it, I think the committee
will not have a 100% or even a 50% overlap with this group, I'm imagining,
because you're claiming you're going to reach out to a much broader
community than we did when we called for nominations of this group.
You know, you have to get people who buy into the idea. I mean, if
you get 15 people each of whom has a different image of what this should
be, and they spend their first year arguing about it, not trying anything
to go ahead, it will probably not be wildly successful for a while, and
maybe never.
>> IAN FISK: Peter, did you --
>> PETER BOYLE: I made a comment in the chat, but obviously I kind of
agree with Maria Elena here, that I think succession is an outcome of
having the right choice for a deputy. I think having as an expectation is
dangerous on two fronts. Firstly, we're kind of tying the hands of a
downstream committee who might not choose to follow that.
And secondly, it then kind of maybe reflects badly on the deputy to
not succeed, to go elsewhere.
>> JOEL BUTLER: Can I ask you to read section 2? You're reading
something into this that's stale, it's left over from CPAD. CPAD language
is based on DPF language which has nothing to do with what we're talking
about. The deputy is simply an appointee of the chairperson, serves at the
chairperson's discretion, and can -- and then just vanishes.
Now, if by being the deputy they gain some edge in being the next
credible chairperson, that's fine. But that's what's said in section 2.
So I apologize for confusing people about the bylaws. If you refresh it,
you will see that there is what you I think just said, which is there's no
commitment to make the deputy the chair, there's certainly no prohibition
against doing it either.
Can you read that? I'm very confused about what's happening, and I
think it's because --
>> MARIA ELENA: We're having concerns, Joel, we're being confused by
your text. Maybe we'll circle back to these in a different moment.
>> JOEL BUTLER: But I just want to make sure we're reading the same
text.
>> IAN FISK: I'm not 100% sure, Joel, but this time I've pushed
recompile four times in the last hour, this time there's a new set of text
which is probably more up to date. I think it's probably confusing.
>> PETER BOYLE: The mandate expires, it's fairly clear. That drove
what I said, Joel.
>> JOEL BUTLER: This is my fault. I got this in somehow too late to
get most of you to have it. And I may have actually changed that even
during this meeting, it's possible. So, many apologies. But please do
read the text. The whole idea was to make this a one-paragraph synthesis
of most of what we said in section 1, 2, and beyond.
>> IAN FISK: Right, and I think the new bylaw text is consistent with
the thing above, which basically says that the chairperson will propose a
deputy and that's it, in the sense that they have a certain set of
functions, but the next chairperson will be chosen by the executive board.
>> JOEL BUTLER: I think this concept of kind of an election
commission. Now, if you would, which is there before, it was there in
section 2, and that's some group of CPSC effectively members and the EC,
and that has to be worked out with the EC. Which is one of the reasons for
getting this to them, they'll agree to that, they'll have an idea, they'll
agree to leave it open or they'll say they don't want to do it or whatever.
>> IAN FISK: Yeah. Okay.
>> JOEL BUTLER: Yeah, I'm sorry, guys. It resulted in a waste of your
time.
>> IAN FISK: I think everything's fine now, they're both consistent
and they are the terms that we had discussed at the previous meeting. So I
think it should be -- yeah, I think it should be --
>> JOEL BUTLER: You see where it says they're achieving these goals
includes, and there's a dot and there's a new paragraph? Again, this was
written up a while ago. And it was based on the CPAD stuff. It brings
in -- I want to mention this because it does bring in the idea of annual
rewards. And this needs to be, you know, developed a little bit better.
But it does correspond to material that's in the CPAD thing. And when we
get all of this right, this will be roughly similar to that in the
geometric sense. Okay?
>> IAN FISK: Yeah, that sounds great. Let's see. In the five minutes
that we have left, are there general concerns or comments about any section
of the report that people would like people to concentrate on in the next
week? That we haven't highlighted already today? Charles?
>> CHARLES LEGGETT: Not specifically, but I'm just wondering, did we
get any feedback from the DPF presentation?
>> IAN FISK: I did not. Actually that's not entirely -- that's not
entirely true. There is -- I received one -- there was one thing in --
there was one question that was asked in the presentation which I think
probably does need -- we need to figure out how to reflect it in the text,
which reminds me I need to do that. And the question was, did we want to
specify in the text that we should be working toward including making sure
that people who work in software computing are awarded -- are afforded
authorship by the various collaborations.
And it's a little bit of a delicate line to walk because we can't
really -- the collaborations have their own rules. But there might be
something in terms of retention or in the career development stage, just
the idea that fostering an environment where these jobs are seen as
valuable as anything else, and therefore deserving of being able to claim
authorship of the physics results.
I think that was the one thing I got from the questions in the DPF
meeting, which probably we would like to put in the text.
>> JOEL BUTLER: This is Joel again. If you'll remember, you know,
people were kind of I think exhausted at the end of the day.
>> IAN FISK: No more than --
>> JOEL BUTLER: Than the speaker, I guess, it was like midnight or
something. So I actually suggested that two of them that asked questions
at EPAP ask the question again. And hear Ian's answer instead of mine
because Ian did not get to the EPAP meeting because the agenda got shuffled
at the last minute, when the DOE guy that was supposed to talk just didn't
show up for a while. So they thrust me in early, and it was kind of a
mess.
So Ian answered the questions to their satisfaction the same way I
did, at least we didn't work in gross conflict. But that one came up in
the EPAP meeting. It could be in the EPAM minutes or something which I
haven't looked at yet.
>> IAN FISK: Jan?
>> JAN STRUBE: Just a nitpicky comment. My comment I think got maybe
lost in the comment section, the chat. The last sentence of the main
document is redundant.
>> IAN FISK: Last sense of the main document.
>> JAN STRUBE: In the acknowledgements. We're thanking the committee
twice for creating a vision for the CPSC.
>> IAN FISK: Oh, all right.
>> JAN STRUBE: It's the first and last sentence.
>> IAN FISK: Okay. Can we really thank them enough, though? All
right, yes, we will make sure that -- yes, we'll get the second one cleaned
up. Or the first one. Okay. Is there anything else? Okay. So I would
encourage everyone, I'm going to go through, there's some things from
today, a couple of actions, including stripping out the names and the
subsections, all of those will happen soon. And then people should read
through the document.
Feel free to do any and all edits. And then the idea would be that
next Thursday, the 30th, which I know is sort of off-schedule, but
basically just to try to finish up by the end of the month, we will be
going through the whole thing, and then saying that we agree that this can
go out, or fixing it, staying until we can get it fixed.
>> JOEL BUTLER: So "out," to make sure I understand, "out" means just
to the DPFC for limited distribution?
>> IAN FISK: Yes.
>> JOEL BUTLER: Once they say okay, we can give it to HEPAP again for
their comment, right?
>> IAN FISK: Right. And I think the idea of this would be that
assuming the executive board did not have anything that requires us to go
back to massively rewrite sections, that we would just let sort of like a
few representatives as corresponding authors until it requires the work of
the whole committee.
So there's some possibility that we're done as a committee at the end
of this month and there's some possibility that we will have to go, if
there are substantive changes, we'll want to meet as a committee to address
them. If they're not substantive, we'll just fix them. Then HEPAP, and
hopefully by the end of June we'll be able to do sort of a more public
[indiscernible].
All right? Thank you all for coming. Have a good Memorial Day. And
I will talk to you next week. .
>> JOEL BUTLER: Remember, Ian, I'm in low tempo mode next week. Just
a joke. [Laughs] We're supposed to be all taking vacation.
>> IAN FISK: Oh, is there a -- are they doing a furlough?
>> JOEL BUTLER: No. Just supposed to be taking vacation. We don't
have to. It's voluntary.
>> IAN FISK: Huh. Okay. Well, I will make sure --
>> JOEL BUTLER: I was being sarcastic. I'll be at the meeting.
>> IAN FISK: Enjoy your low tempo mode. We'll see if we can tell the
difference.
>> JOEL BUTLER: The concept excites me. I can imagine talking to Bob
Wilson about it.
>> IAN FISK: I --
>> JOEL BUTLER: It's a real thing, we're going to do it.
>> IAN FISK: Certainly they've done this in the past at the labs where
they encourage everyone to take vacation because somehow it pulls the
salaries out of a different pool, I guess.