May 30, 2024
Task Force Plenary.
>> Hello Ian.
>> Hello. Daniel. How are you?
>> I'm glad you connected because I was beginning to worry
that I sent the wrong link.
>> There are more people connected, yes.
>> Are there more people connected. There are four of us.
>> Oh, captioner, yes.
>> It's just you and me at the moment.
>> That's right. I actually posted some comments in the
document.
>> I think I went through and resolved most of them. I had
one, a couple that I was leaving for to deal with at this
meeting.
>> Ian, are you the owner of the mailing list for this?
>> I think Joel is. But yeah -- why, what's up?
>> I just want to change my email address.
>> Oh, okay. I think Joel is going to be a few minutes
late. I'm sure he can fix it. I don't think, I didn't have an
active services account to make the list on the Fermilab
listserver. I don't remember, I don't know how hard it is to do
that yourself.
>> If it's on the Fermilab listserver, I might be able to.
>> It's on the Fermilab listserver. It's been too long.
You send in a mail with the right things in the sub -- not in the
subject but in the body.
>> I know I do that for subscriptions and unsubscriptions.
I guess I can do that then.
>> Unless it's, unless Joel set it up as closed which is
possible because it was set up as a -- it was. All right. Joel
said he is going to be a few minutes late.
>> Sorry, I had to miss the last meeting. I was traveling.
Did you go over my chapter or the thing that I authored?
>> I think so. I think we went over the sections that were
missing. So yeah, why don't we -- let's give Joel another minute
or two and we'll talk about what we need to do today.
Hi, Verena?
>> Hello, hello.
>> All right. So a couple of things.
Let's get started. I got a -- we are sort of off phase this
week because I think the idea was to try to sort of get closure
by the end of May. So we are out of our normal cadence. So I
did receive a number of people who said they could not attend.
So I hope that we have a quorum. I am expecting that Joel
will be joining us soon. What I wanted to do today was a couple
of things.
Let's see. So what I have done is go through the -- I've
done a couple of things. I tried to go through the document and
resolve the things that were as comments where I could and left
them for discussion where I thought they probably -- we needed to
have a little bit of discussion.
And then I tried to work through the notes from the previous
meetings on things that needed to be modified and that's where we
are.
A lot of the comments are in the governance and membership
section. I propose that we do that next. Or after, like after
Joel gets here. So maybe what we can do is cover the, let's
cover a few sections that -- in between.
For instance, we talked last meeting about the section at
the end involving concluding remarks would be basically a section
on next steps.
And so I attempted to do this. This document is intended to
provide instructions for the formation and initial operations.
The document contains many potential directions and activities
beneficial to the software community. Submit the document to the
DPF executive board and address the modifications. After the
plan is approved the DUPF can fulfill their role to populate the
initial committee and the hard work can begin.
The task force members, foundation task force members wish
the CPSC success in their endeavors and hope it's a force for
positive change. The members remain available to provide
guidance in a formal and informal capacity.
That is what I came up with in terms of the concluding
remarks. Is there anything that people think needs to be added
to that section, please speak it.
>> Just to nitpick, the last sentence, CPSC committee,
committee is redundant.
>> Okay.
All right.
>> I think it's the formation task force right and not the
foundation task force.
>> Good point. Yes.
>> You're right. All right.
Where do I have committee listed twice?
>> It's not listed twice.
>> Sorry. What I meant is this, here we go.
Doing it on the fly.
There.
>> Right.
Tada. All right. Okay. Anything else?
No. Okay.
A couple of other things. There were -- there was a few
light changes. For instance, there was the suggestion at the
last meeting that we indicate that the annual meeting should
follow best practices for accessibility for remote and in person
participates. I added that with the citation of the
accessibility document that Maria provided. That solved a
comment where someone noted there was simply a citation that was
empty, by itself.
I needed to move that period. But otherwise, I think that
addresses that.
There were a number of things, like, we went through this
part of the document -- to remind people. Last week we went
through the section on broadening representation. There weren't
a ton of comments. The ones that were there I think got
addressed.
And then we went through implementation strategies. There
were not a lot of comments in here. There was a comment about
annual meetings and that got provided. Got fixed.
That was the thing we covered from the previous meeting.
And then enhancement training education, I believe there
weren't, we went through this as well. There can't be a lot of
comments. They were sort of accepted.
And when I was going through the various things resolving
them, most of the comments were focused in this, in the area up
here in membership. And there's a couple of things that we
probably need to discuss. So the big issue, the biggest issue is
basically who selects the chair and so Daniel correctly pointed
out the thing was a little inconsistent. At some points we say
the chair is chosen by the DPF committee and other places we say
the DPF committee in connection with the existing chair selects
the chair. If we think the chair is a participant in their own
replacement, we should say it. If not, we should not say it.
Anyone have strong opinions?
>> I think they should not be.
>> Okay.
Anyone else?
>> So then the idea is that the DPF ICU committee selects
the first chair and all the other chairs from then on without
consulting the previous chair. Of course the first chair, you
know, is the first chair, right.
>> Right.
>> But then I thought that you might have meant is you
wanted at once the first chair is selected. Then from the second
chair on, the DPF executive committee would consult with the
existing chair.
>> I think it was just, I think it was inconsistent in two
places. So I think --
>> But I would agree with Jan that maybe the chair should be
left out.
>> Okay.
>> On the decision.
>> Yes. I think.
>> I think it probably goes without saying that in the
selection of a new chair, the committee will discuss with the
outgoing chair. I don't think it needs to be explicitly stated
they discuss it with the outgoing chair.
>> I think we -- then I think I cleaned it up so it was --
so it was correct.
Let's see.
>> So this is Joel, I'm sorry, I missed out and I'm on the
phone. What was that last thing?
>> So the -- we were trying to make consistent -- at some
point in the document we listed that the DPF executive committee
in consultation would consult with the chair on the outgoing
chair and other places we just said the DPF committee. I think
we said just the DPF committee.
>> Up to you.
>> The statement that both are working together to provide
an annual report, the idea is we want to make sure that it was
clear that the DPF did not, is not working on their report,
right?
>> Sorry.
>> Maybe it's already been fixed. You had a comment listed
here as the statement that both the DPF and CPSE chairperson
together will provide an annual poll -- the DPF is writing an
annual report to the CPSC itself. Which I think is fixed. I
hope.
Now it says the CPSC through the chairperson will keep the
executive committee inform offed the plans by providing a report
to the executive committee making updates twice a year and
informing the chairperson of any issues if needed. I think we
may have fixed this.
Maybe?
Or is the issue this one here, Daniel. Specific committees
with the CPSC and the committees working together?
>> Yes, this part reads a little confusing. It says
specific activities that will be carried out by DPF and the CPSC
chairperson. Choosing the chairperson.
>> That belongs to the previous comment, right?
>> I think we need to --
>> Well, whatever it is, it's not doing the right thing.
>> I propose that we take that bullet out.
>> It doesn't say it's provided an annual report to the .GI
committee. It says through the chairperson.
>> Those are separate. We can make that clear by saying, so
the specific -- if we want to have parallelism, specific
activities that the CPSC chairperson carries out including. But
I think this lower section is just the CPSC chairperson. I agree
this bullet should come out. But I think the other, I think
this, they are not, this is just the chairperson usually.
Not working together with the executive committee.
Okay?
Okay.
I think there was one other comment which I was hoping to
get some help with.
Specifically, so in this section in section enhancing
communications. There was a comment about that we probably
should expand a bit on, sort of, how the HSF was formed and -- I
was hoping that someone would volunteer to give some text into
the enhancing communication.
>> Sorry, how the HSF was formed?
>> So, specifically, the comment was, this is all true but
an awkward way to introduce the HEP software foundation. It was
born of concurrency form that functioned since 2011 to 2014 and
held three annual meetings.
I think this is the issue at hand is this one. Which is in
here. I'm having a really hard time getting to the right thing.
>> Could you tell me what line is it so I can find it?
>> It says 308.
But you would think if I went to the code, it does not, over
leaf is not doing the thing it's supposed to do. Basically it's
under enhanced communications which is -- HEP community.
Yes. Here we go. It's for anyone who is looking at the
PDF, it's section 3.3.
(open mic with background noise coming through)?
>> For over ten years the HEP software foundation has been
facilitating cooperative efforts internationally.
>> The HEP should be changed to HSF in parentheses.
>> That is true.
>> Okay. Now I can see the -- my comment. I guess my
comment has to do with the fact that the genesis of HSF really
didn't have to do with the NSF when it was HEP. It predated the
request for NSF for a report, for a roadmap.
It had to do with an initiative that was fostered by CERN
and Fermilab to start working together on things that had to do
with concurrency. That's -- and there was the concurrency forum,
right. That organized a couple of annual meetings at Fermilab.
Then a third at CERN. And that was the genesis of the HEP
software foundation.
And then there was a request from NSF, I believe, to put
together a roadmap. And that's how the first serious activity
from HSF was born.
>> Do we -- I don't think we need to go through all the
forums that preceded the HEP software foundation. I don't think
that's necessary.
>> No. But I guess --
>> To write a small paragraph.
>> It looks like the HEP software foundation was created
under the auspices of the --
>> Certainly -- (cross talk).
>> That's not true, right?
>> No, of course not. If it looks like that, then we should
change it.
>> I'm not --
>> -- that I don't think we -- I only had a paragraph and I
don't think we need to go into the history of the HSF here.
>> I agree with you, Liz. I was just providing background
to the people attending this meeting.
>> But let me also say that it really was -- the HSF is an
unfunded entity, right.
We could have done -- we couldn't have done anything here to
form the community white paper which we did in 2018, I think I
have a reference here, if we didn't get some funding from the
NSF.
So you know, NSF is the only organization that is, you know,
funded the HSF efforts at all. And it was instrumental, those
meetings that we had in order to write the community white paper.
So I could figure out how to, I mean do you want me to
de-emphasize the roadmap document? Is that what you're saying?
>> No. Liz. But it says thanks to projects like. The
community has a well-established organization. I think that we
should, I mean HSF was created by the community. It
self-organized in order to work in coordination and avoid
duplication. And then that's what we should say and then we
should say that then thanks to the auspices of NSF and HEP, a
roadmap was, right.
>> Yes, okay.
>> And that -- whatever, something like that.
>> Something.
>> Did you write this, Liz?
>> I wrote it. So it's almost like the part of the sentence
that says volunteer efforts and well established, all of that
part is, should just come first in that sentence.
>> Yes, yes. I wouldn't de-emphasize at all the roadmap or
the support from NSF. It just looks like thanks to NSF, then
this committee was established.
>> Yes, I certainly didn't --
>> That's not accurate, right?
>> Yes. No. I certainly did not mean.
>> Maybe we can change, is it possible we can solve this by
changing the order having HEP HSF come first.
>> Yes, that's what I was thinking. Rearranging the
sentences.
>> And I cannot for the life of me looking at the code
itself figure out where the HEP is coming from HEP software
foundation.
>> Yes.
>> It's not there. Yet, it somehow renders as being -- if
you look for over ten years, um.
>> If there is that there, then I certainly it's a typo.
>> But it's not there. That's the weird part.
>> Okay.
>> It says for over ten years the HSF site -- and somehow
the GL --
>> That must be where it comes in, GL must maybe.
>> GL, it must resolve that somehow in interesting ways. I
would propose --
>> I did mean to put HSF in parentheses there because I used
that acronym farther down.
>> But maybe, oh, maybe glossary HSF is fully specified.
That is possible.
>> Yes. I'm pretty sure what you just said is correct.
>> Okay.
>> Then it's a glossary that is the mistake.
>> Well, I don't know if it's -- well, yeah. Let me go
check.
>> Okay. Thanks.
>> Although, I mean, we can also just, we can also probably
just remove that one glossary if it's a problem. But let me go
check first.
>> It's strange because, yeah, the glossary seems to be the
thing that is rendering it out. But that is solvable. Liz, can
you change this?
>> Yes. I will rearrange this.
>> Perfect. So we have just the -- I went through a number
of the comments that could easily resolve them. There was an
issue here up at -- there was a discussion as to whether we
wanted to change advanced to promote and my only concern about
that is we used promote before.
It says, for instance, the FTF should propose ways that the
DVF can promote the ways of the panel. We're referring to the
CPSC and advance software and computing in the HEP community.
So there was discussion as to whether we wanted to use the
word promote twice or if we had a different word in mind. I
don't have a strong opinion. People can see where I am talking
about.
This is in here. Here.
Would be really great if this little feature going to the
section of the code actually worked.
>> I'm surprised.
>> Can you tell me about the section I'm trying to get to.
Can you see the comment from Jan.
>> No. It's too small on my screen.
>> Where in the document are you trying to be?
>> I'm trying to be at line 130. There was a comment that
said the FTF should propose ways that the DPF can help promote
the work of the panel.
Here. Sorry, it's right here.
>> Good. You found it.
>> We are officially, this is section 1.2. And this is
actually from a section that we -- this is the background of the
document. So the question, this is actually something that we --
because it was background to the thing we haven't edited very
much.
Which was -- whether -- and advance software and computing
in the HEP community. So the, this is mostly a question to the
foundation task force, the foundation task force should promote
ways that the DPF can promote the work of the panel and advance
software computing in the community.
I think we can probably solve this with an additional word
like advanced efforts in software computing.
The point was that we're trying to make it clear that the
panel isn't doing research itself. The panel is not advancing
software and computing but they are --
>> That's why I suggested -- this is a nitpick but I just
stumbled over this.
>> Do you mind that we use promote twice.
>> Well, indeed. Okay. I don't have a -- yeah.
>> We can also replace the first promote, right. So you
mean advertise or do you mean visualize?
>> I think advertise would not be terrible. How do people
feel about advertise?
>> I like that.
>> Okay.
And a little farther down there was a comment from Daniel
about whether it makes sense to say?
>> It's not resolved. You didn't change advance.
>> You're right. Sorry.
>> Just down, below, there you go. Up, up, there.
Thank you.
>> There we go.
All right. Does it make sense to say within the actual
report that we will submit the report. It's a little circular.
But I guess I'm not in the next section, in the next step
section, we also refer back to this. So I think probably more
interesting is whether it makes sense to say we are doing this --
I'm also taking out, we were going to do this in early May and we
didn't?
>> Instead of saying the FTF made a report which will
address the issues, you can say this report attempts to address
these issues or something like that.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> And I don't think that the report should contain the --
should include the statement about the intention to submit itself
in a particular weight. Right.
>> Okay. I'm wondering, do we have to say -- well, can
we -- like -- FTF report to address the above issues. Okay.
All right.
Verena, you had a comment. Do we want to self-organize the
panel members or leave it as a lottery?
Verena?
I thought Verena was present but she isn't anymore?
>> I think she said she had to leave.
>> Oh. Okay.
I am tempted to say then just in the interest of simplicity
that we don't try to make this more complicated than a lottery.
How do people feel about that?
>> That works for me.
>> Simple is good.
>> All right. And then there was the last, there was this
issue of -- which is a substantive issue and it may lead to more
discussion than we want. If the list doesn't have the
appropriate person to retrieve the balance, de-required, does the
chairperson have the power to go off the list and fill the
position?
>> Maybe not to fill it but to recruit more nominees for
consideration?
>> Okay. If the member finds they cannot carry out their
responsibilities and withdraws from the committee, the
chairperson will draw from the list -- or recruit?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> I mean if they're on the list already, they're already --
they were recruited.
>> Right.
>> No, this is if you don't find somebody of the right
representation, underrepresented a group.
>> I see.
>> You're trying to --
>> Also elicit further nominations you're really dragging
out the process.
>> Soliciting further nominations. Yes.
>> Very good.
All right. I think this one is fixed.
Then a question, what do theoretical activities (background
noise from an open mic).
Maybe this is a question --
>> Joel, can you mute or something? It's very noisy.
>> Joel is on the phone. I'm not sure he is capable of
muting.
I may be able to mute him.
I can't see him.
All right.
>> He got quiet. So.
>> Okay. Or I can mute the phone.
Okay. Maybe I shouldn't but ... He can unmute himself.
>> I don't think he is unmute himself now if he is actually
calling in.
>> I can say ask to unmute. I don't know how that works. I
can't unmute.
>> There is a special code you can do on the phone but I
don't know what it is.
>> Sorry about that.
Okay. So the question was, like, there was a question
about, we had representations from all major theoretical
computational activities. I was assuming this meant things like
lattice QCD and the various event generators and other things.
But I may be wrong. The question is, do we need to fix this?
Maybe this is a question to Steve.
>> Well, there were several categories.
>> Should we list them out or do we -- the question was,
what do theoretical computational activities mean? In the case
of the experiments there are two classifiers that I mentioned
above. Including -- so I -- I guess the question is whether we
wanted to make a list or not.
>> Well, let me mention what I might put on the list and
event generators, perturbative QCD, lattice QCD. Accelerator
physics. Cosmological simulations related to HEP. Those are
some of the things that I think of.
>> What line are you on?
>> I'm online 207 which is in, again, section -- it's in
section 2.3.
>> 307?
>> 207.
>> 207.
QCD, Steve, help me out?
>> Cosmological simulations, accelerator physics.
>> Do you want to start that off with including so it
doesn't seem it's only these ones?
>> Or for example, perhaps.
>> So I guess my point was that we could easily come up with
a similar list on the experimental side, right?
Because the needs, I mean there are different families
within the experimental community. Within software and computing
also that you may think should also be represented. People
working on, I mean different areas of, you know, offline
software. I mean, the detector simulation community for example
is different from the, people working on reconstruction. There
is typically more experimental oriented. And people doing
analysis facilities or tools is a different community. Each one
has a different collaboration. When you think of the root
collaboration. There is also the, I guess the accelerator
community.
There is also several computing areas. And sometimes the
people working on computing don't really talk to the people
working on software.
Right.
Basically, all of the chapters of software and computing and
CMS can be translated to different communities I guess.
So I don't know how we want to go about this.
>> Frankly, I don't think we want to be that prescriptive.
I also think that listing all the things for the theoretical
domains is also not in our best interest.
I mean, I would hope the people we select would want
representation and be able to make wise decisions on their own.
We shouldn't have to be prescriptive.
>> I also agree with Charles. I think it typically is very
difficult finding nominations and we'll be tying their hands down
if we become too prescriptive.
>> And I guess what I'm suggesting, leaving representatives,
if we want to say, maybe we need to expand this to say, Joel is
calling. Joel, what's up?
I'm not hearing you.
Not ignoring you at all, Joel.
>> I am not muted. Except when I asked. The point that I
was trying to make is I do not grasp because I don't have the
text in front of me, the context of this but I don't think you
want to start listing the minutia of everything. There is
computing for DAQ. There is computing for trigger. And AI for
HLTs now. If you go into the micro structure of experiment
computing versus theory computing, you'll wind up with long lists
that will, that everybody will ignore, everybody is supposed to
try to understand their communities and the other communities.
The thought was, I don't have the context so I may be saying
something stupid, but you need to communicate the fact that if
we're going to put a long laundry list in here, we have to put it
everywhere. In the same context.
>> Yes, I agree.
I have air bridged Joel to the conference. Can people hear
him?
>> Yes. He is clear now.
>> Good. What -- I was proposing making a very small -- our
parallelism is pretty reasonable. Reasonable numbers of lab and
university, equal fraction of experiments and computational
developers. And representatives from the major experiments and
frontiers. I would propose saying representatives-over major
theoretical experimenters and computational activities and leave
it at that. I don't think that we benefit from spelling out a
long list.
I would propose represents of all major theoretical and
experimental computational activities, period?
>> I would say areas rather than activities.
>> That sounds great.
>> That sounds great to me. Just keep some balance and
economy. People will figure it out, I think.
>> Right. So we go like that.
>> I can say this works best.
>> This works best.
>> Okay. Thanks.
I'll stay on this way?
>> I have you next to my speakerphone and you are on my cell
phone, as long as you can hear, we can all hear you and that's
great.
>> I think I should be able to mute.
>> You shouldn't have to mute. Or I can also, I will -- if
you have to -- I can -- yep, you shouldn't have to mute.
>> There could be a lot of background noise right now.
>> In which case you can. But you should be able to control
that.
>> Thank you so much. Bye.
>> No problem.
>> Over. [laughing] over.
>> So we fixed that.
I think I fixed this. I think we understood this part.
Resolved. That one is resolved as well. We talked about that
already.
We -- Liz is going to reorder the HSF section to fix that.
I believe that -- there was one other thing here which I
guess we need to talk about. Because I think we can fix it
because, it may be a detail which is in support for public data.
Which is line 346.
>> Ian, sorry to bother you. If you can go back to where we
were looking. There is something I wanted to clarify.
>> A section number.
>> The membership that we were looking at. So that is
earlier.
>> This part here?
>> Yes. Guidance for the selection. Yes. If you could
keep going down, yes. This part. So we are trying to say there
is a difference between the second bullet which is talking about
experimental and theoretical computation developers and then the
fourth bullet.
>> Yes.
Agreed.
We could basically say -- is there a way to combine the two?
What we're basically trying to say is equal fraction
experimental -- that is supposed to say equal fractions of
experiment and theorists. The second section is trying to
represent all the major computational areas.
So the first one is about areas, the first one is about
people and the second one is about expertise in areas. I agree
that they are -- maybe a distinction without a difference. Or
maybe we can combine them. Or maybe we need to separate them
further?
>> If you separate the first two bullets from the second two
bullets.
One is fractions and the other is representation?
>> Okay.
So you propose I split my list?
>> Yes. And just say -- you know, encouraging
representations from blah for the second one. Or something to
that effect.
>> That would be fine. Let me see if I can fix that.
I propose changing -- all right. Success?
>> That looks good.
>> Yes, thanks.
>> All right. There was a question about open data. And
whether, like, we have a little bit of a detail I think in the,
in here, in section 3.6 which was pointed out by Jan. Which is
that we, it says this is more a complaint than a recommendation.
I'm wondering if we can fix this a little bit.
Public data has long been a part of the (reading) datasets
in 2010, the experiments started releasing public data with the
help of the CERN open portal project.
These efforts rely on host laboratory support. Despite
request from the DEO and NSF (reading) limited public datasets at
Noir lab and Fermilab for DES. And none for particle physics in
the U.S.
So I'm wondering if we, I'm wondering if the statement helps
us or what we -- or whether we want to -- if we're saying we
should change --
>> Sorry. Since I made that comment, I think we should
change it. Apologies for not making a more constructive comment.
I didn't have a way to address this without some surgery here.
I think it would be good in principle to turn this around
and say here are the benefits of open data. And part of that is
a mandate to open the data.
And like, jump on that rather than saying there isn't any.
>> Right.
>> So I couldn't find a quick way to address this. I think
this needs a bit of a rewrite to be honest.
>> Do you -- I mean these -- I mean I don't see how to
modify the facts. But you're just saying that we should strike
them I guess?
>> No. I think the only issue is whether we're supposed
to --
>> We do need to point out all facts that are in existence.
The question is how is this constructive? How is this a
recommendation that we make to the panel? This is stating a fact
but how is that relevant -- something positive.
>> I thought part of the panel's work is to advocate to the
agencies when we feel something requires funding?
>> Why don't we just say that?
>> Okay.
>> I guess -- but my other question is, so I think the issue
is that despite the request, what it says here --
>> We can take that out.
>> The thing is we requested it but it didn't happen.
>> The thing is, and Joel knows more about this than I do.
For a very long time, they've been asking for a data management
policy. And so they obvious value it and they want it to be part
of people's proposals for funding but then they don't give the
people who are creating the data any funding to, you know,
actually preserve it.
>> So I guess would it make sense to put, maybe we can
change this sentence to suggest, or maybe something along the
lines of despite a general interest --
>> Despite is probably a bad word.
>> We can say that, yeah, something about there is -- there
has been a desire for a data management policy which is not --
>> It's like, the NSF have required. The EOE and NSF have
required a data management policy for any funded proposal and we
can strike the rest of this sentence. You know, except for
something like however, there are, this has not resulted in
public datasets.
>> However, this will require dedicated support?
>> Yes. Dedicated support.
Yes. I mean?
>> I like the way you just phrased it. It hasn't resulted
really in open datasets yet. So I think this would be a
recommendation, the panel should work with the funding agencies
to, you know, turn, to -- how do I say this -- commute. I'm not
looking for that word. To change the data that's supposed to be
open into open datasets. To support the creation of open
datasets from the project.
>> Work with the --
>> I'm stumbling over my words but I think this is the right
way to -- what you just said I think is the way to do it.
>> So the second bullet which is work with the fund agencies
to highlight the importance of public data for advancement of HEP
and secure dedicated funding.
That's the recommendation we're making?
>> That one I strongly agree with.
>> I would propose in the introductory paragraph above, we
find a way to make a sentence that says that --
>> So that's what I was trying to do.
>> Right. We'll have to say there has been a stated desire
for public data that is not turned into publicly available
datasets.
>> Right.
>> Can I ask why --
>> I think I was going to say, however, there are limited
public datasets. We can't say there are none, right. Because
then the astro people get on our case because these things do
exist in the astro world.
>> Low about to improve the situation in the future, the
CPSC could --
>> I'd like to ask a question. If despite the DOENSF asking
for a data management policy, this has not happened. Why or how
do we think the CPSC can make a difference.
>> It's not that it hasn't happened, it's that the data is
open while you're working on the project. And then the project
funding ends and so does the openness of the data.
>> But, like, does it even in the U.S. I'm saying, does it
even have a disk to sit on. You say it's open but does it have
an --
>> At some point that needs funding. Someone needs to pay
for that disk and the access and maintaining the server and that
isn't there. That is exactly the problem.
>> I thought you were saying while the project was funded it
was open data. And I don't see that even happening. What does
it mean to have open data.
>> That's a good question and I asked at the meeting last
week. It's not all that way defined. The vague ideas they have
is to further reproducible research and at the very least open,
make the data points available that you put in your plots. Make
them available in something better than PNG.
But that by itself doesn't make the research reproducible.
So I do agree there is a lot of work that needs to keep
happening. And I think that's what could come in here. So I
think we could expand on that a little bit.
Obviously, obviously, the astro particle physics community
has realized the importance of open data. And somehow they
manage to figure out how to get this done.
But for them, it's also -- there is more public interest in,
you know, pictures from the sky than in some tables with, like,
statistical details about Higgs analysis.
>> I guess I'm trying to understand if the reason the labs
are not doing it is because they are not getting funds from the
agencies or not have the resources technical or otherwise? If it
is a lack of funds, then we have to work with the labs to
actually garner these funds somehow.
>> I'm on the -- what do they call it -- actually I think
they call it the JOB. I'm on the JOB for DES. And they, the way
they went about it, they made a real proposal for maintaining
some of this data at Fermilab. And Kathy approved the proposal
and gave it funding.
So you know, it was explicitly funded.
What they did. Their curation of the data.
>> I propose in the interest of time, I made the following
proposal which was to keep the introduction of Liz's sentence
because I think after our discussion, I think it makes sense to
keep it. But maybe a little less detail.
Despite the request to have a data management policy, there
are a limited number of public datasets. To improve this going
forward, the following activities are recommended.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Verena, there is a general formatting question which I
will go and fix. Because we nest the recommendations sometimes
and don't otherwise, I propose that we go with this format which
is basically to finish the sentence with something about these
are recommendations and then go into them so we don't have as
many nested things. I will clean that up.
Let's see. What I would propose to do now is to do this, I
will do this, clean up the formatting. I will accept all of the
changes that are there so that this is the text and then I guess,
I would encourage, I suggest that people read the document and we
can do this by email in some sense.
If there are things -- what I propose people to do is read
the document and decide if there are things they want to just fix
or things that they think we need a further discussion.
I have tried to address all the ones today that were listed
as things we needed to talk about. And there may be some light
formatting things.
Then the idea is to start moving, to actually move the names
of the authors from the appendix into the fronts. But to do
that, I would like people to sign off they have read it and
agreed that their name can be on it. We may not have a meeting
for that.
>> Do you want me to do my rearranging of that paragraph
before or after you do this?
>> If you have an opportunity to do it in the next day or
so, that would be great.
>> I can do it tomorrow morning.
>> Great.
>> Does that seem like a reasonable plan to people?
>> Sure.
>> Works for me.
>> All right. So I will do this formatting. Liz will do
some changes. We will approve everything. In people have
further comments they should make them. And then we will decide
if we need to have a meeting or need to have a sign off.
Is there, I haven't been watching the chat. Has there been
a lot of things in the chat?
Anything in the chat?
>> Not really.
>> All right. So we will have, let's do an assessment early
next week as to whether a meeting is needed and everyone is -- I
will send out a summary of this meeting with the plan which is
that people should read and comment on the cleaned up next and we
will make a decision as to whether we need a final meeting or
not.
Seem okay?
>> I do have a question, this is Joel, sorry.
I apologize for missing the beginning. One goal of this
rather intensifying effort is to get this into the ECCMs for at
least an initial reaction.
>> Right.
>> And at what point, we're probably not there yet maybe.
And they did say they would be willing to delay their June
meeting. Go ahead, sorry.
>> So that's actually -- like, you all have enormous power
right at the moment. Which is to, we have a small quorum today.
I would like to make the proposal that with the, we will do a
clean up of the, there are two small sections that we have a
clean up on. There is some formatting that we're going to do.
And then I -- even without the author list approval, that it
might make sense to get an initial DPF executive committee
feedback in case there is something substantive from them.
And so what I would propose, would people be comfortable
with us sharing, this would be the preliminary draft for the
executive board in the state that it's in with the caveats
discussed before?
>> I'm okay with that. (Liz).
>> Anyone not okay with that?
Okay. Seems like, okay.
Joel, is that okay with you?
>> Yes, it's fine. Blast the draft of the document and that
will be fine. We can describe it as a preview of a draft.
>> What worries me a little bit is that this could be, we
can do something and if they have a lot of comments or somethings
we need to discuss or they don't like something in particular, we
shouldn't spend a lot of time tuning everything to then only have
to start to restart.
Let's get some feedback.
>> Great. Okay.
>> All right. Okay. Sounds good.
All right. I will send out some minutes and some requests
to people. Liz and myself will clean up the document and I hope
very much that by Sunday evening there is the final, the text
that people can sort of begin to make a fresh set of comments on.
If they're just typos or something, or you think would sound
better another way, just fix it.
It will be fine.
All right. Have a good weekend!
>> Thank you.
>> Bye.
>> Thanks very much.
>> Bye.
May 30, 2024
Task Force Plenary.
>> Hello Ian.
>> Hello. Daniel. How are you?
>> I'm glad you connected because I was beginning to worry
that I sent the wrong link.
>> There are more people connected, yes.
>> Are there more people connected. There are four of us.
>> Oh, captioner, yes.
>> It's just you and me at the moment.
>> That's right. I actually posted some comments in the
document.
>> I think I went through and resolved most of them. I had
one, a couple that I was leaving for to deal with at this
meeting.
>> Ian, are you the owner of the mailing list for this?
>> I think Joel is. But yeah -- why, what's up?
>> I just want to change my email address.
>> Oh, okay. I think Joel is going to be a few minutes
late. I'm sure he can fix it. I don't think, I didn't have an
active services account to make the list on the Fermilab
listserver. I don't remember, I don't know how hard it is to do
that yourself.
>> If it's on the Fermilab listserver, I might be able to.
>> It's on the Fermilab listserver. It's been too long.
You send in a mail with the right things in the sub -- not in the
subject but in the body.
>> I know I do that for subscriptions and unsubscriptions.
I guess I can do that then.
>> Unless it's, unless Joel set it up as closed which is
possible because it was set up as a -- it was. All right. Joel
said he is going to be a few minutes late.
>> Sorry, I had to miss the last meeting. I was traveling.
Did you go over my chapter or the thing that I authored?
>> I think so. I think we went over the sections that were
missing. So yeah, why don't we -- let's give Joel another minute
or two and we'll talk about what we need to do today.
Hi, Verena?
>> Hello, hello.
>> All right. So a couple of things.
Let's get started. I got a -- we are sort of off phase this
week because I think the idea was to try to sort of get closure
by the end of May. So we are out of our normal cadence. So I
did receive a number of people who said they could not attend.
So I hope that we have a quorum. I am expecting that Joel
will be joining us soon. What I wanted to do today was a couple
of things.
Let's see. So what I have done is go through the -- I've
done a couple of things. I tried to go through the document and
resolve the things that were as comments where I could and left
them for discussion where I thought they probably -- we needed to
have a little bit of discussion.
And then I tried to work through the notes from the previous
meetings on things that needed to be modified and that's where we
are.
A lot of the comments are in the governance and membership
section. I propose that we do that next. Or after, like after
Joel gets here. So maybe what we can do is cover the, let's
cover a few sections that -- in between.
For instance, we talked last meeting about the section at
the end involving concluding remarks would be basically a section
on next steps.
And so I attempted to do this. This document is intended to
provide instructions for the formation and initial operations.
The document contains many potential directions and activities
beneficial to the software community. Submit the document to the
DPF executive board and address the modifications. After the
plan is approved the DUPF can fulfill their role to populate the
initial committee and the hard work can begin.
The task force members, foundation task force members wish
the CPSC success in their endeavors and hope it's a force for
positive change. The members remain available to provide
guidance in a formal and informal capacity.
That is what I came up with in terms of the concluding
remarks. Is there anything that people think needs to be added
to that section, please speak it.
>> Just to nitpick, the last sentence, CPSC committee,
committee is redundant.
>> Okay.
All right.
>> I think it's the formation task force right and not the
foundation task force.
>> Good point. Yes.
>> You're right. All right.
Where do I have committee listed twice?
>> It's not listed twice.
>> Sorry. What I meant is this, here we go.
Doing it on the fly.
There.
>> Right.
Tada. All right. Okay. Anything else?
No. Okay.
A couple of other things. There were -- there was a few
light changes. For instance, there was the suggestion at the
last meeting that we indicate that the annual meeting should
follow best practices for accessibility for remote and in person
participates. I added that with the citation of the
accessibility document that Maria provided. That solved a
comment where someone noted there was simply a citation that was
empty, by itself.
I needed to move that period. But otherwise, I think that
addresses that.
There were a number of things, like, we went through this
part of the document -- to remind people. Last week we went
through the section on broadening representation. There weren't
a ton of comments. The ones that were there I think got
addressed.
And then we went through implementation strategies. There
were not a lot of comments in here. There was a comment about
annual meetings and that got provided. Got fixed.
That was the thing we covered from the previous meeting.
And then enhancement training education, I believe there
weren't, we went through this as well. There can't be a lot of
comments. They were sort of accepted.
And when I was going through the various things resolving
them, most of the comments were focused in this, in the area up
here in membership. And there's a couple of things that we
probably need to discuss. So the big issue, the biggest issue is
basically who selects the chair and so Daniel correctly pointed
out the thing was a little inconsistent. At some points we say
the chair is chosen by the DPF committee and other places we say
the DPF committee in connection with the existing chair selects
the chair. If we think the chair is a participant in their own
replacement, we should say it. If not, we should not say it.
Anyone have strong opinions?
>> I think they should not be.
>> Okay.
Anyone else?
>> So then the idea is that the DPF ICU committee selects
the first chair and all the other chairs from then on without
consulting the previous chair. Of course the first chair, you
know, is the first chair, right.
>> Right.
>> But then I thought that you might have meant is you
wanted at once the first chair is selected. Then from the second
chair on, the DPF executive committee would consult with the
existing chair.
>> I think it was just, I think it was inconsistent in two
places. So I think --
>> But I would agree with Jan that maybe the chair should be
left out.
>> Okay.
>> On the decision.
>> Yes. I think.
>> I think it probably goes without saying that in the
selection of a new chair, the committee will discuss with the
outgoing chair. I don't think it needs to be explicitly stated
they discuss it with the outgoing chair.
>> I think we -- then I think I cleaned it up so it was --
so it was correct.
Let's see.
>> So this is Joel, I'm sorry, I missed out and I'm on the
phone. What was that last thing?
>> So the -- we were trying to make consistent -- at some
point in the document we listed that the DPF executive committee
in consultation would consult with the chair on the outgoing
chair and other places we just said the DPF committee. I think
we said just the DPF committee.
>> Up to you.
>> The statement that both are working together to provide
an annual report, the idea is we want to make sure that it was
clear that the DPF did not, is not working on their report,
right?
>> Sorry.
>> Maybe it's already been fixed. You had a comment listed
here as the statement that both the DPF and CPSE chairperson
together will provide an annual poll -- the DPF is writing an
annual report to the CPSC itself. Which I think is fixed. I
hope.
Now it says the CPSC through the chairperson will keep the
executive committee inform offed the plans by providing a report
to the executive committee making updates twice a year and
informing the chairperson of any issues if needed. I think we
may have fixed this.
Maybe?
Or is the issue this one here, Daniel. Specific committees
with the CPSC and the committees working together?
>> Yes, this part reads a little confusing. It says
specific activities that will be carried out by DPF and the CPSC
chairperson. Choosing the chairperson.
>> That belongs to the previous comment, right?
>> I think we need to --
>> Well, whatever it is, it's not doing the right thing.
>> I propose that we take that bullet out.
>> It doesn't say it's provided an annual report to the .GI
committee. It says through the chairperson.
>> Those are separate. We can make that clear by saying, so
the specific -- if we want to have parallelism, specific
activities that the CPSC chairperson carries out including. But
I think this lower section is just the CPSC chairperson. I agree
this bullet should come out. But I think the other, I think
this, they are not, this is just the chairperson usually.
Not working together with the executive committee.
Okay?
Okay.
I think there was one other comment which I was hoping to
get some help with.
Specifically, so in this section in section enhancing
communications. There was a comment about that we probably
should expand a bit on, sort of, how the HSF was formed and -- I
was hoping that someone would volunteer to give some text into
the enhancing communication.
>> Sorry, how the HSF was formed?
>> So, specifically, the comment was, this is all true but
an awkward way to introduce the HEP software foundation. It was
born of concurrency form that functioned since 2011 to 2014 and
held three annual meetings.
I think this is the issue at hand is this one. Which is in
here. I'm having a really hard time getting to the right thing.
>> Could you tell me what line is it so I can find it?
>> It says 308.
But you would think if I went to the code, it does not, over
leaf is not doing the thing it's supposed to do. Basically it's
under enhanced communications which is -- HEP community.
Yes. Here we go. It's for anyone who is looking at the
PDF, it's section 3.3.
(open mic with background noise coming through)?
>> For over ten years the HEP software foundation has been
facilitating cooperative efforts internationally.
>> The HEP should be changed to HSF in parentheses.
>> That is true.
>> Okay. Now I can see the -- my comment. I guess my
comment has to do with the fact that the genesis of HSF really
didn't have to do with the NSF when it was HEP. It predated the
request for NSF for a report, for a roadmap.
It had to do with an initiative that was fostered by CERN
and Fermilab to start working together on things that had to do
with concurrency. That's -- and there was the concurrency forum,
right. That organized a couple of annual meetings at Fermilab.
Then a third at CERN. And that was the genesis of the HEP
software foundation.
And then there was a request from NSF, I believe, to put
together a roadmap. And that's how the first serious activity
from HSF was born.
>> Do we -- I don't think we need to go through all the
forums that preceded the HEP software foundation. I don't think
that's necessary.
>> No. But I guess --
>> To write a small paragraph.
>> It looks like the HEP software foundation was created
under the auspices of the --
>> Certainly -- (cross talk).
>> That's not true, right?
>> No, of course not. If it looks like that, then we should
change it.
>> I'm not --
>> -- that I don't think we -- I only had a paragraph and I
don't think we need to go into the history of the HSF here.
>> I agree with you, Liz. I was just providing background
to the people attending this meeting.
>> But let me also say that it really was -- the HSF is an
unfunded entity, right.
We could have done -- we couldn't have done anything here to
form the community white paper which we did in 2018, I think I
have a reference here, if we didn't get some funding from the
NSF.
So you know, NSF is the only organization that is, you know,
funded the HSF efforts at all. And it was instrumental, those
meetings that we had in order to write the community white paper.
So I could figure out how to, I mean do you want me to
de-emphasize the roadmap document? Is that what you're saying?
>> No. Liz. But it says thanks to projects like. The
community has a well-established organization. I think that we
should, I mean HSF was created by the community. It
self-organized in order to work in coordination and avoid
duplication. And then that's what we should say and then we
should say that then thanks to the auspices of NSF and HEP, a
roadmap was, right.
>> Yes, okay.
>> And that -- whatever, something like that.
>> Something.
>> Did you write this, Liz?
>> I wrote it. So it's almost like the part of the sentence
that says volunteer efforts and well established, all of that
part is, should just come first in that sentence.
>> Yes, yes. I wouldn't de-emphasize at all the roadmap or
the support from NSF. It just looks like thanks to NSF, then
this committee was established.
>> Yes, I certainly didn't --
>> That's not accurate, right?
>> Yes. No. I certainly did not mean.
>> Maybe we can change, is it possible we can solve this by
changing the order having HEP HSF come first.
>> Yes, that's what I was thinking. Rearranging the
sentences.
>> And I cannot for the life of me looking at the code
itself figure out where the HEP is coming from HEP software
foundation.
>> Yes.
>> It's not there. Yet, it somehow renders as being -- if
you look for over ten years, um.
>> If there is that there, then I certainly it's a typo.
>> But it's not there. That's the weird part.
>> Okay.
>> It says for over ten years the HSF site -- and somehow
the GL --
>> That must be where it comes in, GL must maybe.
>> GL, it must resolve that somehow in interesting ways. I
would propose --
>> I did mean to put HSF in parentheses there because I used
that acronym farther down.
>> But maybe, oh, maybe glossary HSF is fully specified.
That is possible.
>> Yes. I'm pretty sure what you just said is correct.
>> Okay.
>> Then it's a glossary that is the mistake.
>> Well, I don't know if it's -- well, yeah. Let me go
check.
>> Okay. Thanks.
>> Although, I mean, we can also just, we can also probably
just remove that one glossary if it's a problem. But let me go
check first.
>> It's strange because, yeah, the glossary seems to be the
thing that is rendering it out. But that is solvable. Liz, can
you change this?
>> Yes. I will rearrange this.
>> Perfect. So we have just the -- I went through a number
of the comments that could easily resolve them. There was an
issue here up at -- there was a discussion as to whether we
wanted to change advanced to promote and my only concern about
that is we used promote before.
It says, for instance, the FTF should propose ways that the
DVF can promote the ways of the panel. We're referring to the
CPSC and advance software and computing in the HEP community.
So there was discussion as to whether we wanted to use the
word promote twice or if we had a different word in mind. I
don't have a strong opinion. People can see where I am talking
about.
This is in here. Here.
Would be really great if this little feature going to the
section of the code actually worked.
>> I'm surprised.
>> Can you tell me about the section I'm trying to get to.
Can you see the comment from Jan.
>> No. It's too small on my screen.
>> Where in the document are you trying to be?
>> I'm trying to be at line 130. There was a comment that
said the FTF should propose ways that the DPF can help promote
the work of the panel.
Here. Sorry, it's right here.
>> Good. You found it.
>> We are officially, this is section 1.2. And this is
actually from a section that we -- this is the background of the
document. So the question, this is actually something that we --
because it was background to the thing we haven't edited very
much.
Which was -- whether -- and advance software and computing
in the HEP community. So the, this is mostly a question to the
foundation task force, the foundation task force should promote
ways that the DPF can promote the work of the panel and advance
software computing in the community.
I think we can probably solve this with an additional word
like advanced efforts in software computing.
The point was that we're trying to make it clear that the
panel isn't doing research itself. The panel is not advancing
software and computing but they are --
>> That's why I suggested -- this is a nitpick but I just
stumbled over this.
>> Do you mind that we use promote twice.
>> Well, indeed. Okay. I don't have a -- yeah.
>> We can also replace the first promote, right. So you
mean advertise or do you mean visualize?
>> I think advertise would not be terrible. How do people
feel about advertise?
>> I like that.
>> Okay.
And a little farther down there was a comment from Daniel
about whether it makes sense to say?
>> It's not resolved. You didn't change advance.
>> You're right. Sorry.
>> Just down, below, there you go. Up, up, there.
Thank you.
>> There we go.
All right. Does it make sense to say within the actual
report that we will submit the report. It's a little circular.
But I guess I'm not in the next section, in the next step
section, we also refer back to this. So I think probably more
interesting is whether it makes sense to say we are doing this --
I'm also taking out, we were going to do this in early May and we
didn't?
>> Instead of saying the FTF made a report which will
address the issues, you can say this report attempts to address
these issues or something like that.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> And I don't think that the report should contain the --
should include the statement about the intention to submit itself
in a particular weight. Right.
>> Okay. I'm wondering, do we have to say -- well, can
we -- like -- FTF report to address the above issues. Okay.
All right.
Verena, you had a comment. Do we want to self-organize the
panel members or leave it as a lottery?
Verena?
I thought Verena was present but she isn't anymore?
>> I think she said she had to leave.
>> Oh. Okay.
I am tempted to say then just in the interest of simplicity
that we don't try to make this more complicated than a lottery.
How do people feel about that?
>> That works for me.
>> Simple is good.
>> All right. And then there was the last, there was this
issue of -- which is a substantive issue and it may lead to more
discussion than we want. If the list doesn't have the
appropriate person to retrieve the balance, de-required, does the
chairperson have the power to go off the list and fill the
position?
>> Maybe not to fill it but to recruit more nominees for
consideration?
>> Okay. If the member finds they cannot carry out their
responsibilities and withdraws from the committee, the
chairperson will draw from the list -- or recruit?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> I mean if they're on the list already, they're already --
they were recruited.
>> Right.
>> No, this is if you don't find somebody of the right
representation, underrepresented a group.
>> I see.
>> You're trying to --
>> Also elicit further nominations you're really dragging
out the process.
>> Soliciting further nominations. Yes.
>> Very good.
All right. I think this one is fixed.
Then a question, what do theoretical activities (background
noise from an open mic).
Maybe this is a question --
>> Joel, can you mute or something? It's very noisy.
>> Joel is on the phone. I'm not sure he is capable of
muting.
I may be able to mute him.
I can't see him.
All right.
>> He got quiet. So.
>> Okay. Or I can mute the phone.
Okay. Maybe I shouldn't but ... He can unmute himself.
>> I don't think he is unmute himself now if he is actually
calling in.
>> I can say ask to unmute. I don't know how that works. I
can't unmute.
>> There is a special code you can do on the phone but I
don't know what it is.
>> Sorry about that.
Okay. So the question was, like, there was a question
about, we had representations from all major theoretical
computational activities. I was assuming this meant things like
lattice QCD and the various event generators and other things.
But I may be wrong. The question is, do we need to fix this?
Maybe this is a question to Steve.
>> Well, there were several categories.
>> Should we list them out or do we -- the question was,
what do theoretical computational activities mean? In the case
of the experiments there are two classifiers that I mentioned
above. Including -- so I -- I guess the question is whether we
wanted to make a list or not.
>> Well, let me mention what I might put on the list and
event generators, perturbative QCD, lattice QCD. Accelerator
physics. Cosmological simulations related to HEP. Those are
some of the things that I think of.
>> What line are you on?
>> I'm online 207 which is in, again, section -- it's in
section 2.3.
>> 307?
>> 207.
>> 207.
QCD, Steve, help me out?
>> Cosmological simulations, accelerator physics.
>> Do you want to start that off with including so it
doesn't seem it's only these ones?
>> Or for example, perhaps.
>> So I guess my point was that we could easily come up with
a similar list on the experimental side, right?
Because the needs, I mean there are different families
within the experimental community. Within software and computing
also that you may think should also be represented. People
working on, I mean different areas of, you know, offline
software. I mean, the detector simulation community for example
is different from the, people working on reconstruction. There
is typically more experimental oriented. And people doing
analysis facilities or tools is a different community. Each one
has a different collaboration. When you think of the root
collaboration. There is also the, I guess the accelerator
community.
There is also several computing areas. And sometimes the
people working on computing don't really talk to the people
working on software.
Right.
Basically, all of the chapters of software and computing and
CMS can be translated to different communities I guess.
So I don't know how we want to go about this.
>> Frankly, I don't think we want to be that prescriptive.
I also think that listing all the things for the theoretical
domains is also not in our best interest.
I mean, I would hope the people we select would want
representation and be able to make wise decisions on their own.
We shouldn't have to be prescriptive.
>> I also agree with Charles. I think it typically is very
difficult finding nominations and we'll be tying their hands down
if we become too prescriptive.
>> And I guess what I'm suggesting, leaving representatives,
if we want to say, maybe we need to expand this to say, Joel is
calling. Joel, what's up?
I'm not hearing you.
Not ignoring you at all, Joel.
>> I am not muted. Except when I asked. The point that I
was trying to make is I do not grasp because I don't have the
text in front of me, the context of this but I don't think you
want to start listing the minutia of everything. There is
computing for DAQ. There is computing for trigger. And AI for
HLTs now. If you go into the micro structure of experiment
computing versus theory computing, you'll wind up with long lists
that will, that everybody will ignore, everybody is supposed to
try to understand their communities and the other communities.
The thought was, I don't have the context so I may be saying
something stupid, but you need to communicate the fact that if
we're going to put a long laundry list in here, we have to put it
everywhere. In the same context.
>> Yes, I agree.
I have air bridged Joel to the conference. Can people hear
him?
>> Yes. He is clear now.
>> Good. What -- I was proposing making a very small -- our
parallelism is pretty reasonable. Reasonable numbers of lab and
university, equal fraction of experiments and computational
developers. And representatives from the major experiments and
frontiers. I would propose saying representatives-over major
theoretical experimenters and computational activities and leave
it at that. I don't think that we benefit from spelling out a
long list.
I would propose represents of all major theoretical and
experimental computational activities, period?
>> I would say areas rather than activities.
>> That sounds great.
>> That sounds great to me. Just keep some balance and
economy. People will figure it out, I think.
>> Right. So we go like that.
>> I can say this works best.
>> This works best.
>> Okay. Thanks.
I'll stay on this way?
>> I have you next to my speakerphone and you are on my cell
phone, as long as you can hear, we can all hear you and that's
great.
>> I think I should be able to mute.
>> You shouldn't have to mute. Or I can also, I will -- if
you have to -- I can -- yep, you shouldn't have to mute.
>> There could be a lot of background noise right now.
>> In which case you can. But you should be able to control
that.
>> Thank you so much. Bye.
>> No problem.
>> Over. [laughing] over.
>> So we fixed that.
I think I fixed this. I think we understood this part.
Resolved. That one is resolved as well. We talked about that
already.
We -- Liz is going to reorder the HSF section to fix that.
I believe that -- there was one other thing here which I
guess we need to talk about. Because I think we can fix it
because, it may be a detail which is in support for public data.
Which is line 346.
>> Ian, sorry to bother you. If you can go back to where we
were looking. There is something I wanted to clarify.
>> A section number.
>> The membership that we were looking at. So that is
earlier.
>> This part here?
>> Yes. Guidance for the selection. Yes. If you could
keep going down, yes. This part. So we are trying to say there
is a difference between the second bullet which is talking about
experimental and theoretical computation developers and then the
fourth bullet.
>> Yes.
Agreed.
We could basically say -- is there a way to combine the two?
What we're basically trying to say is equal fraction
experimental -- that is supposed to say equal fractions of
experiment and theorists. The second section is trying to
represent all the major computational areas.
So the first one is about areas, the first one is about
people and the second one is about expertise in areas. I agree
that they are -- maybe a distinction without a difference. Or
maybe we can combine them. Or maybe we need to separate them
further?
>> If you separate the first two bullets from the second two
bullets.
One is fractions and the other is representation?
>> Okay.
So you propose I split my list?
>> Yes. And just say -- you know, encouraging
representations from blah for the second one. Or something to
that effect.
>> That would be fine. Let me see if I can fix that.
I propose changing -- all right. Success?
>> That looks good.
>> Yes, thanks.
>> All right. There was a question about open data. And
whether, like, we have a little bit of a detail I think in the,
in here, in section 3.6 which was pointed out by Jan. Which is
that we, it says this is more a complaint than a recommendation.
I'm wondering if we can fix this a little bit.
Public data has long been a part of the (reading) datasets
in 2010, the experiments started releasing public data with the
help of the CERN open portal project.
These efforts rely on host laboratory support. Despite
request from the DEO and NSF (reading) limited public datasets at
Noir lab and Fermilab for DES. And none for particle physics in
the U.S.
So I'm wondering if we, I'm wondering if the statement helps
us or what we -- or whether we want to -- if we're saying we
should change --
>> Sorry. Since I made that comment, I think we should
change it. Apologies for not making a more constructive comment.
I didn't have a way to address this without some surgery here.
I think it would be good in principle to turn this around
and say here are the benefits of open data. And part of that is
a mandate to open the data.
And like, jump on that rather than saying there isn't any.
>> Right.
>> So I couldn't find a quick way to address this. I think
this needs a bit of a rewrite to be honest.
>> Do you -- I mean these -- I mean I don't see how to
modify the facts. But you're just saying that we should strike
them I guess?
>> No. I think the only issue is whether we're supposed
to --
>> We do need to point out all facts that are in existence.
The question is how is this constructive? How is this a
recommendation that we make to the panel? This is stating a fact
but how is that relevant -- something positive.
>> I thought part of the panel's work is to advocate to the
agencies when we feel something requires funding?
>> Why don't we just say that?
>> Okay.
>> I guess -- but my other question is, so I think the issue
is that despite the request, what it says here --
>> We can take that out.
>> The thing is we requested it but it didn't happen.
>> The thing is, and Joel knows more about this than I do.
For a very long time, they've been asking for a data management
policy. And so they obvious value it and they want it to be part
of people's proposals for funding but then they don't give the
people who are creating the data any funding to, you know,
actually preserve it.
>> So I guess would it make sense to put, maybe we can
change this sentence to suggest, or maybe something along the
lines of despite a general interest --
>> Despite is probably a bad word.
>> We can say that, yeah, something about there is -- there
has been a desire for a data management policy which is not --
>> It's like, the NSF have required. The EOE and NSF have
required a data management policy for any funded proposal and we
can strike the rest of this sentence. You know, except for
something like however, there are, this has not resulted in
public datasets.
>> However, this will require dedicated support?
>> Yes. Dedicated support.
Yes. I mean?
>> I like the way you just phrased it. It hasn't resulted
really in open datasets yet. So I think this would be a
recommendation, the panel should work with the funding agencies
to, you know, turn, to -- how do I say this -- commute. I'm not
looking for that word. To change the data that's supposed to be
open into open datasets. To support the creation of open
datasets from the project.
>> Work with the --
>> I'm stumbling over my words but I think this is the right
way to -- what you just said I think is the way to do it.
>> So the second bullet which is work with the fund agencies
to highlight the importance of public data for advancement of HEP
and secure dedicated funding.
That's the recommendation we're making?
>> That one I strongly agree with.
>> I would propose in the introductory paragraph above, we
find a way to make a sentence that says that --
>> So that's what I was trying to do.
>> Right. We'll have to say there has been a stated desire
for public data that is not turned into publicly available
datasets.
>> Right.
>> Can I ask why --
>> I think I was going to say, however, there are limited
public datasets. We can't say there are none, right. Because
then the astro people get on our case because these things do
exist in the astro world.
>> Low about to improve the situation in the future, the
CPSC could --
>> I'd like to ask a question. If despite the DOENSF asking
for a data management policy, this has not happened. Why or how
do we think the CPSC can make a difference.
>> It's not that it hasn't happened, it's that the data is
open while you're working on the project. And then the project
funding ends and so does the openness of the data.
>> But, like, does it even in the U.S. I'm saying, does it
even have a disk to sit on. You say it's open but does it have
an --
>> At some point that needs funding. Someone needs to pay
for that disk and the access and maintaining the server and that
isn't there. That is exactly the problem.
>> I thought you were saying while the project was funded it
was open data. And I don't see that even happening. What does
it mean to have open data.
>> That's a good question and I asked at the meeting last
week. It's not all that way defined. The vague ideas they have
is to further reproducible research and at the very least open,
make the data points available that you put in your plots. Make
them available in something better than PNG.
But that by itself doesn't make the research reproducible.
So I do agree there is a lot of work that needs to keep
happening. And I think that's what could come in here. So I
think we could expand on that a little bit.
Obviously, obviously, the astro particle physics community
has realized the importance of open data. And somehow they
manage to figure out how to get this done.
But for them, it's also -- there is more public interest in,
you know, pictures from the sky than in some tables with, like,
statistical details about Higgs analysis.
>> I guess I'm trying to understand if the reason the labs
are not doing it is because they are not getting funds from the
agencies or not have the resources technical or otherwise? If it
is a lack of funds, then we have to work with the labs to
actually garner these funds somehow.
>> I'm on the -- what do they call it -- actually I think
they call it the JOB. I'm on the JOB for DES. And they, the way
they went about it, they made a real proposal for maintaining
some of this data at Fermilab. And Kathy approved the proposal
and gave it funding.
So you know, it was explicitly funded.
What they did. Their curation of the data.
>> I propose in the interest of time, I made the following
proposal which was to keep the introduction of Liz's sentence
because I think after our discussion, I think it makes sense to
keep it. But maybe a little less detail.
Despite the request to have a data management policy, there
are a limited number of public datasets. To improve this going
forward, the following activities are recommended.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Verena, there is a general formatting question which I
will go and fix. Because we nest the recommendations sometimes
and don't otherwise, I propose that we go with this format which
is basically to finish the sentence with something about these
are recommendations and then go into them so we don't have as
many nested things. I will clean that up.
Let's see. What I would propose to do now is to do this, I
will do this, clean up the formatting. I will accept all of the
changes that are there so that this is the text and then I guess,
I would encourage, I suggest that people read the document and we
can do this by email in some sense.
If there are things -- what I propose people to do is read
the document and decide if there are things they want to just fix
or things that they think we need a further discussion.
I have tried to address all the ones today that were listed
as things we needed to talk about. And there may be some light
formatting things.
Then the idea is to start moving, to actually move the names
of the authors from the appendix into the fronts. But to do
that, I would like people to sign off they have read it and
agreed that their name can be on it. We may not have a meeting
for that.
>> Do you want me to do my rearranging of that paragraph
before or after you do this?
>> If you have an opportunity to do it in the next day or
so, that would be great.
>> I can do it tomorrow morning.
>> Great.
>> Does that seem like a reasonable plan to people?
>> Sure.
>> Works for me.
>> All right. So I will do this formatting. Liz will do
some changes. We will approve everything. In people have
further comments they should make them. And then we will decide
if we need to have a meeting or need to have a sign off.
Is there, I haven't been watching the chat. Has there been
a lot of things in the chat?
Anything in the chat?
>> Not really.
>> All right. So we will have, let's do an assessment early
next week as to whether a meeting is needed and everyone is -- I
will send out a summary of this meeting with the plan which is
that people should read and comment on the cleaned up next and we
will make a decision as to whether we need a final meeting or
not.
Seem okay?
>> I do have a question, this is Joel, sorry.
I apologize for missing the beginning. One goal of this
rather intensifying effort is to get this into the ECCMs for at
least an initial reaction.
>> Right.
>> And at what point, we're probably not there yet maybe.
And they did say they would be willing to delay their June
meeting. Go ahead, sorry.
>> So that's actually -- like, you all have enormous power
right at the moment. Which is to, we have a small quorum today.
I would like to make the proposal that with the, we will do a
clean up of the, there are two small sections that we have a
clean up on. There is some formatting that we're going to do.
And then I -- even without the author list approval, that it
might make sense to get an initial DPF executive committee
feedback in case there is something substantive from them.
And so what I would propose, would people be comfortable
with us sharing, this would be the preliminary draft for the
executive board in the state that it's in with the caveats
discussed before?
>> I'm okay with that. (Liz).
>> Anyone not okay with that?
Okay. Seems like, okay.
Joel, is that okay with you?
>> Yes, it's fine. Blast the draft of the document and that
will be fine. We can describe it as a preview of a draft.
>> What worries me a little bit is that this could be, we
can do something and if they have a lot of comments or somethings
we need to discuss or they don't like something in particular, we
shouldn't spend a lot of time tuning everything to then only have
to start to restart.
Let's get some feedback.
>> Great. Okay.
>> All right. Okay. Sounds good.
All right. I will send out some minutes and some requests
to people. Liz and myself will clean up the document and I hope
very much that by Sunday evening there is the final, the text
that people can sort of begin to make a fresh set of comments on.
If they're just typos or something, or you think would sound
better another way, just fix it.
It will be fine.
All right. Have a good weekend!
>> Thank you.
>> Bye.
>> Thanks very much.
>> Bye.