GDE Executive Committee: Public Meeting Minutes 5 October 2006

Present: B. Barish, T. Raubenheimer, G. Dugan, B. Foster, N. Walker, K. Yokoya, M. Nozaki, M. Hronek (sec)

Minutes: 24 hrs or approved and posted.

Announcements: n/a

Action Items:

  • RDR Mgmt
    • V. Kuchler joined meeting for update on the Caltech agenda
    • Reduce cost discussions to 45 minutes/concerns should be put into writing
    • Send out charge and agenda
    • C. Adolpsen joined meeting
      • Dealing with cost drivers
      • Identify cost differences w/wbs –partially successful
      • Manpower rates are an issue
      • Regional Differences not resolved - we may have 3 estimates. Labor differences in the three areas are important factor.
      • Preparations for cost reviews, especially Europe
        • Open doors to independent reviewers?
      • Discussion –
        • Cryomodule costs are an issue. Do we try again to bring down the costs?
        • A part of the input from US costing will be available on the timescale of Valencia. We should wait until then.
        • Cryomodule will make a difference, what about cavities? Again, the costs vary region to region and we may not be able to reconcile these numbers.
        • There are some specific items causing the difference, but in the end the major difference is in uncertainties in the quantity discounting.
        • We should understand more from RHIC and LHC about how they understand quantity discounts..

-Valencia Preparations Report

    • Barbara now involved to help communication and logistics..
    • Nick Walker will give opening plenary
    • Concerns. No forum to present work accomplished. Our collaborators need this opportunity.

-Beijing GDE Meeting – no report

-DESY LCWS 07 – no report

-Post RDR Plans

  • Wagner circulated note with suggestions - Barry to call.
  • Using XFEL MOU is helpful
  • MOU for the common fund took 1 year, bigger MOU would be difficult. We many need something less formal than an MOU. We may need something less formal than an MOU. Albrecht suggested for the EDR a goals/phased approach.
  • It was agreed that intermediate goals are good.

Meeting with Roberto – Barry

  • He agreed to give talk at Valencia. Barry will call one week before on what we would like to hear.
  • Sympathetic to our need for strong oversight, but is realistic about slowness of FALC process.
  • Some talk of detector stuff.
    • People are aware of C. Damerells place on the RDB. Detector show coordination with worldwide view. Propose to have detector technology reviews at big meetings
    • FALC to be asked to endorse the charge to demonstrate agency support for this process.
    • There will be an agenda item/presentation by Chris at the next FALC meeting
    • He will make a proposal to EC & we’ll decide whether to endorse. This needs to be considered by RDB first.
    • Detector area: what happens after the RDR? Open concepts/collaboration groups?
    • CCB actions involving performance issues. e.g. push-pull
      • Acquire names of people for detector concepts to participate.
      • Andrei to call a meeting and discuss this study
      • Detector community needs to buy off on scope changes

-ILC Brochure

  • Respond by next week or later. Take a good hard look. We won’t get another one for a while. Content needs a look. To be released by Valencia.

Caltech Meeting –

  • Confidentiality -: not trying to be prescriptive, but we don’t want to open our system. Guidance: Cost numbers have availability “as needed.” We should stay with “as needed” approach. You can have access to the costs you need. State why you need them it will be considered.
  • Most of what we need to do can be done asking the right questions. Seeing the #’s is only part. If you don’t get the right drivers, etc then maybe. CE’s still don’t know what to do. Opening the books is not the right approach. If there is still detail, you should be able to get it. Questions and needs have to be specific. Do we have the flexibility to work these problems?
  • Objection of format. Breaking down session between open & closed – why?
  • This is two separate issues. This is a CF&S meeting not an RDR meeting.CF&S is given this opportunity. They need this basic exercise. No problem with disclosure but we can’t do this with 20 people. Needs to be done line by line. This is the start not the end.
  • Not able to do a real cost review. We don’t have experts for a detail of costs. Progress can be made and we shouldn’t feel inhibited by not having numbers. CF&S cost rumors – countries may not bid if the numbers leak out and they are believed to be too high.
  • Open Sessions. Consultants in each area, but EU and Asia lack representation at Caltech. So, we need to be careful about conclusions.
  • Closed Sessions as needed.

You are here

Home