Minutes of UK CMS Meeting; 16 January 1996, RAL, (with a videoconference link to CERN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Present: AT RAL: R Brown (RAL), D Cockerill (RAL), J Connolly (RAL), J Coughlan (RAL), P Flower (RAL), G Hall (ICSTM), H Heath (Bristol), P Hobson (Brunel), D Imrie (Brunel), P Jeffreys (RAL), B Kennedy (RAL), D Miller (ICSTM), G Patrick (RAL), E Reid (Bristol), U Schaefer (Bristol) At CERN: C Seez (ICSTM), T Virdee (ICSTM) Present for item 1: Brian Foster Apologies for absence: W Cameron (ICSTM) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Minutes: B W Kennedy / RAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1) General discussion with new PPC chairman, Brian Foster. BF started with some remarks about finance. The science allocation was expected to be announced in Parliament on the afternoon of 16-Jan-1996, so nothing definite could be said before that. BF's expectation was a small reduction in funding, but not as severe as in 1995. At the PPARC council meeting in December 1995, Ken Pounds had tried to move L1M (L = pounds) from particle physics to astronomy. This was resisted, but council will want to look again at the balance of the research programme. BF and David Williams (UCL) have been asked to prepare a so-called "Effective programme" setting out what could be done with current University staffing levels if funds were unlimited. It appears that PPARC is approximately L10M short of this ideal state. This is an artificial exercise; council will use it to argue for extra funding from Government, but BF was pessimistic about the likely outcome. Babar will go to council for approval in February. BF would like to know when the LHC experiments will be ready for approval. He assumes that CMS and ATLAS will go to council this summer, and expects approval for two years spending, with a commitment for five years under the current business plan. DJAC pointed out that the CMS programme, including the ECAL regional centre, should lift off in 1997-98, and this does not fit well with UK spending decisions. CMS will need to commit substantial funds for the regional centre before 1998. BF recognised the problem, but said that, at best, council might not decide to transfer funds to astronomy; however, astronomers are in the majority on the council. BF hopes to "hold the line" until 1997-98. There is little likelihood of extra money from Government. It seems clear that applications for extra funds for particle physics will not be viewed sympathetically while the CERN subscription continues at its present level. DJAC recalled that renegociations over the startup of LHC have already recovered L1.5M from CERN. BF replied that some of this has been loaned to the astronomers, but should come back to HEP. However, much of this money has already been absorbed by unfavourable exchange rate movements. The Llewellyn-Smith formula cannot compensate for a general fall in the value of all other currencies against the Swiss franc, as has happened recently. BF emphasised that the PPC intend to retain the 75%-25% split between the LHC experiments and the rest of the HEP programme, so that LHC would suffer proportionately from any funding cuts. TV asked what scale of reduction is required in the CERN subscription. BF replied that it was too early to discuss concrete figures, but that some, perhaps small, saving must be achieved to indicate that the HEP community is making a serious effort to reduce costs. BF asked whether CMS will be ready for approval this summer. RMB and GH were sure that it would, as they believe that all of the questions asked by the selection panel have been answered satisfactorily. DCI asked whether the expected approval of Babar in February would affect the LHC experiments, and whether PPARC would try to reallocate resources between ATLAS and CMS. On the first point, BF said he did not expect the progress of Babar to hurt the LHC programme; on the second point, he felt that PPARC might well wish to shift the balance between the experiments, but his own view was that the current arrangements made best use of the available resources. TV raised the question of the CERN subscription being funded outside the OST science budget. BF replied that this was impossible under the present Government, but things might change if there were a change of Government after the next election. 2) PPARC Management Committee for CMS-UK BF reported that this matter was not discussed at length during the last PPC meeting; according to Ian Corbett, no decision has yet been made on the structure of the management committee (MCom hereafter). BF expects that the MCom will be similar to those set up by George Kalmus for the LEP and HERA experiments. RMB added that, since the PPC last met, Ian Corbett has been in contact with GK; the essential difference from the LEP era is that GK is not a PPARC employee, and PPARC want visible control. To achieve this, ATLAS and CMS will have LEP-style MComs chaired by GK, with another level of committees chaired by IC meeting less frequently, to show PPARC's ultimate control. TV asked for clarification of the role and composition of the Mcoms. RMB described the OPAL experience. The MCom met several times per year, and required a detailed statement of the progress of the project, so that prompt action could be taken in case of deviations from agreed milestones or budget profiles. The MCom was chaired by GK, and had one representative from each institute, a secretary, and engineering representatives. BF added that external referees may also attend the LHC MComs. [At this point, BF left the meeting as he had business elsewhere. The remainder of item 2 was discussed later in the meeting, but is described here for clarity.] RMB suggested that CMS should be represented on the MCom by one person from each institute, plus one representative from each project (ie ECAL and tracker), and one or more engineers. DJAC asked whether the trigger should be represented separately. RMB replied that in that case the daq group should also have a representative; this would give the dangerous impression that CMS-UK was engaged in four separate projects rather than two. After some discussion, it was agreed that each institute would like one representative for each project in which it was involved (ECAL and tracker for Brunel, IC, and RAL; ECAL only for Bristol). RMB will suggest this to GK, who has the final decision. GH asked when the MCom will start meeting. RMB could not give an exact date, but said that Ian Corbett was keen to start it up quickly. 3) Paper to PPESP in reply to questions raised at their last meeting (4-Dec-1995). A copy of this paper was distributed before the meeting, and will be sent to the PPESP for their meeting on 22-Jan-1996. Two minutes from the meeting seemed to indicate area where PPESP was concerned, but did not ask direct questions. In Minute 3.2, the panel were concerned about the tracker optical link technology. GH had spoken to Wade Allison since the PPESP meeting and this point had not been raised, so it does not appear to be a serious problem. In Minute 3.9, the panel seemed unhappy about the time profile of effort needed from RAL technology department. GK had subsequently approved our plans (flat to +-1 Sy/y) informally to DJAC, but not in writing. Again, this seems not to be an issue. The document for PPESP answers four direct questions. Discussion of individual points is summarised here. Minute 3.6 - reduction of responsibilities The money deficit of L0.5M has been absorbed in the ECAL project. For common fund contributions, CMS has agreed an exchange rate of L1 = 2.067 ChF, which applied when the original CMS costings were calculated. This has released L210k. Much of the UK common fund contribution would in any event have been spent in the UK, and is not affected by the exchange rate. The need for hired staff for the regional centre has been reassessed, on the assumption that more use can be made of university staff. The total cost is thereby reduced from L1.1M to L0.99M. The portion of the cost to be counted in the CMS cost matrix (L0.42M) has not changed. The minimum effort needed for the tracker is 51 Sy. As 45 has been allocated, an extra 6 must be paid for from requisition money. GK is aware of this, and believes that there will be no objection in principle. Minute 3.10 - milestones for all areas of activity. The document contains milestones for the ECAL and tracker, but not for the trigger, as the relevant experts were not available when the paper was written. Minute 3.11 - Organisation and management structure. The paper sets out the current position. ATLAS have a much more detailed account, but this is needed because of the larger number of institutes involved. John Fry has seen the ECAL section of our reply, and agrees with it. There was a general discussion of the need to allow for a smooth changeover to a lower level of funding if necessary. The recent PPESP meeting has clarified the issues, and it is timely to formally notify the CMS ECAL project managers of our proposals. A letter has been sent to Hans Hofer and Jean-Louis Faure stating that the selection panel supports the UK ECAL regional centre, but drawing attention to the fact that, with the lowest funding scenario, the regional centre could not proceed. GH said that, for the tracker, documents submitted to the PPESP have also been sent to the tracker project manager. CMS central management are therefore aware of developments. RMB said that the CMS management reacted strongly against French funding limitations, and CMS-UK must keep the collaboration clearly informed about the state of UK funding. TV agreed that this was essential. PRH pointed out that resources would be wasted in planning both for the optimised and worst-case scenarios. There was general agreement that this would be so, but there was no other way to proceed. 4) UK nomination for CMS election committee. Only TV had replied to RMB's email asking for nominations. The first task of the committee will be to find candidates to chair the CMS collaboration board. TV was in favour of RMB continuing in this position, as permitted by the rules. RMB said that two names had been suggested to him. He will approach them privately. 5) AOB The only other business was the success of the video conference link to CERN. After some initial difficulties, RMB (at RAL) and TV (at CERN) felt that it had worked well, and should be used routinely to save travel costs. TV said that it could also be used for meetings of the CMS technical board.