1 / 8

US CMS Constitution

US CMS Constitution. Nick Hadley May 8, 2009. Ad Hoc Committee to revise the US CMS Constitution. Members: Aaron Dominguez, Jay Hauser, Ritchie Patterson and Nick Hadley (ex-officio) The committee has reviewed and discussed numerous comments from the collaboration

bcherry
Télécharger la présentation

US CMS Constitution

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. US CMS Constitution • Nick Hadley • May 8, 2009

  2. Ad Hoc Committee to revise the US CMS Constitution • Members: • Aaron Dominguez, Jay Hauser, Ritchie Patterson and Nick Hadley (ex-officio) • The committee has reviewed and discussed numerous comments from the collaboration • In general, the existing constitution, available at http://uscms.fnal.gov/uscms/organization/constitution.html, is well written and has served the Collaboration well over many years. However, with the passage of time and the approach of a new phase to CMS (data-taking and upgrades), certain modifications do seem timely. • The US CMS Collaboration Board remains the "highest authority of the US CMS Collaboration in matters that are specific to US institutions," as before.

  3. Proposed Modifications (1) • The US CMS Advisory Board (UCAB) has seldom met in recent years. Rather than eliminating this board, it may be better to clearly state its role, as well as to reformulate somewhat the makeup of this group. The purpose of this Board could be stated as: "To facilitate and help organize the participation of US physicists in both the scientific work and detector projects of the CMS experiment. In addition, the Advisory Board advises the US CMS Collaboration Board on matters of importance. Because it can meet more frequently, the Board serves as a useful interface between the USCMS Collaboration and other entities such as the international CMS Collaboration and US CMS Project management."

  4. Proposed Modifications (2) • It has been suggested that the subdetector Institution Board chairs have become less relevant with time as the detector moves into data-taking mode. However, a counter-argument is that with future upgrades, the subdetector IB chairs will remain useful as independent advocates for the institutions involved. For example, the subdetector IB chairs could play an active role in representing the US CMS institutes in subdetector operation, maintenance, upgrade and funding matters, by being informed and consulted about ongoing deliberations by the relevant USCMS Level 2 and Level 1 Project Management. They would be charged with communicating about these matters to the relevant institutions. This committee tends to prefer the option that these positions be maintained.

  5. Proposed Modifications (3) • Elections should never require an absolute majority of the US CMS Collaboration Board - it is just too hard to achieve. Modifications of the Constitution, however, should continue to require an absolute majority. • In order to increase informed particpation, information about elections and candidates should be sent to the all members of US CMS.

  6. Proposed Modifications (4,5) • The ASCB (Advisory Software and Computing Board) has not been active in several years. It is suggested to disband this body, but to hold an election for one or two positions that will represent computing on the US CMS Advisory Board. This could be called the "USCMS Computing Liaison". • The idea of renaming the "USCMS Physics Coordinator" to "USCMS Physics Liaison" to avoid confusion with the "CMS Physics Coordinator" seems to have broad support.

  7. Proposed Modifications (6) • The LPC is not mentioned as part of the Constitution. It seems desirable to give this group a formal role. E.g. The two LPC coordinators could be added as members of the US CMS Advisory Board. • The LPC Advisory Group sent the following preliminary recommendation to this committee about including the LPC in the US CMS Constitution. • "Recommendation: In order to include the LPC in the USCMS constitution we recommend a short statement about the function of the LPC be added to the Constitution Proper and the Governance Document (LPCGD) entitled: "Recommendations on the Governance of the LHC Physics Center" be added as an Annex to the Constitution. • Rationale: The LPC has several stakeholders in addition to USCMS: the Fermilab CMS Center, the U.S. CMS Research Program, the CMS Physics Organization and CMS Executive Board, and Fermilab. At some future date these stakeholders may wish to revise the LPCGD. Following a revision, if the LPCGD or other text pertaining to LPC governance were part of the USCSM Constitution, this would require modifying the USCMS Constitution. As an annex is not part of a constitution, future revisions to the LPCGD would not modify the constitution."

  8. Proposed Modifications (7) • US CMS Heavy Ion effort • New since US CMS constitution was written • How should this be included? • Add as a subdetector with US CMS IB and so on. • Advisory Board members • ???

More Related