[Olympus] Bureaucracy
Michael Kohl
kohlm at jlab.org
Sun Feb 24 08:40:29 EST 2013
Dear Stan, all,
I think there is no disagreement. Let me expand my 'vision' at this time.
The idea is that we will have in addition to the analysis coordinator
(currently Jan) and luminosity coordinator (currently Juergen) also a
physics coordinator.
The analysis coordination happens on a more technical level, involving
coordination of calibrations, tracking, simulations, and oversight of the
analysis tasks, and how the analysis is preferrably done (analysis
framework). If we choose to have two analysis groups then each group
should have an analysis coordinator to oversee and organize the effort
in each group.
The luminosity coordinator is responsible to pursue the goal of
ultimately providing the best possible luminosity from the various systems
in place. This task has enough complexity to it that it is (and has been)
spawned from the overall analysis. You are right that luminosity
determination is analysis, too.
The physics coordination is about putting the strings together in order
to get toward a publishable result with a realistic error. The physics
coordinator is the contact point between the analysis groups if there is
more than one. The physics coordinator is also responsible to reinforce
the rules for release and publishing. The physics coordinator reviews the
analysis and luminosity results and is the last instance before results
are delivered to the OLYMPUS board for release approval. In reality there
will be frequent interactions between the physics coordinator and analysis
and luminosity coordinators, eventually resulting in new or revised
analysis tasks, in order to keep the overall process on the right track.
I see the two most important missions for the OLYMPUS management in the
upcoming term:
1) Extract the most accurate and robust result from the OLYMPUS experiment
(aim at fall 2013), and, after further refining, get it published within a
reasonable time frame (aim at early 2014).
2) Make sure that the students can achieve their goal of producing their
theses and obtaining their PhD in a timely manner.
More to come in the discussion session tomorrow.
Best regards
Michael
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013, Belostotski, Stanislav wrote:
> Dear Doug,
> Could you please clarify what do you mean by subdivision:
> " For the analysis phase of the experiment the important coordinators
> will be: analysis, luminosity, and physics"
> As I understand the analysis must be performed by all interested in the
> analysis members of the Collaboration the luminosity analysis being a
> part of the whole analysis including MC simulation, digitization,etc,
> For me analysis+luminosity+physics= analysis + release of the results
> +paper drafting.
> So there might be either one analysis coordinator or (better)
> an analysis coordinator and a physics coordinator.
> I hope that all agree that the physic outcome must be released under
> consensus of the whole collaboration (author list) with the requirement
> of independent cross check fulfilled.Only released results may be
> presented at conferences and published.
> I try to clarify these issues in advance in order to safe quite
> limited discussion time at the Meeting.
> With best regards StanB
>
>
>
> On 22.02.2013 19:46, Douglas Kenneth Hasell wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> Since the OLYMPUS experimental data taking is now completed and we are concentrating on analysis the group leaders have decided that some restructuring of the collaboration organisation is in order
>>
>> 1. The existing organisation ( spokesman - Michael, deputy - Alexander, project manager - Uwe, and technical coordinator - me ) will stay in place until the hardware work (optical survey, field mapping, and disassembly) is completed. Thus the current organisation will stay on until sometime in April.
>>
>> The one exception to this is that Alexander Winnebeck will be leaving us at the end of this month to take up a new position. Alexander of course has been instrumental in getting the experiment to work and the successful data runs are largely thanks to his hard work. I am sure we all wish him every success in his new career.
>>
>> The role of deputy for March - April will be assumed by Uwe.
>>
>> 2. Since the technical aspects of the experiment will be completed there is little need for a project manager and technical coordinator after April. Therefore these positions will disappear.
>>
>> 3. Michael's term as spokesman was extended last summer to cover the data acquisition phase of the experiment and further extended now to April. Now we would like to hold elections for the positions of spokesman and deputy spokesman to guide us through the analysis phase of the experiment. These elections will be held during the collaboration meeting next week.
>>
>> Currently there are two nominations for spokesman - Michael Kohl and Douglas Hasell. There is one nomination for deputy spokesman - Uwe Schneekloth. If there are any other nominations please forward these to me as soon as possible.
>>
>> During the collaboration meeting the candidates will be invited to give a brief overview of their "vision" or plans for moving forward with the analysis.
>>
>> The actual election is based on groups or institutions with one vote per institution. I propose to do this via E-mail and will ask Alexander Winnebeck (winnebec at mit.edu), as his last duty as deputy spokesman, to collect and report on the results. We will expect E-mail votes not later than 28 February, 2013 from:
>>
>> Arizona - R. Alarcon
>> Bari - R. De Leo
>> Bonn - R. Beck
>> DESY - U. Schneekloth
>> Ferrara - P. Lenisa
>> Glasgow - I. Lehmann
>> Hampton - M. Kohl
>> Mainz - F. Maas
>> MIT - R. Milner
>> PNPI - S. Belostoski
>> Rome - E. Cisbani
>> UNH - J. Calarco
>> Yerevan - N. Akopov
>>
>> Please communicate your preferences to your respective group leader.
>>
>> 4. The spokesman and deputy spokesman, in consultation with the group leaders, appoint the various coordinators.
>
> For the analysis phase of the experiment the important coordinators
> will be: analysis, luminosity, and physics. In addition there will
> likely be coordinators for each detector system responsible for the
> analysis of their detector system.
>>
>> 5. All of the above will be presented for discussion at the collaboration meeting.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Douglas
>>
>> 26-415 M.I.T. Tel: +1 (617) 258-7199
>> 77 Massachusetts Avenue Fax: +1 (617) 258-5440
>> Cambridge, MA 02139, USA E-mail: hasell at mit.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Olympus mailing list
>> Olympus at mit.edu
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Olympus mailing list
> Olympus at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>
+---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dr. Michael Kohl, Assistant Professor and Staff Research Scientist
| Physics Department, Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23668
| Jefferson Lab, C117, 12000 Jefferson Avenue, Newport News, VA 23606
| Phone: +1-757-727-5153 (HU), +1-757-269-7343 (Jlab)
| Fax: +1-757-728-6910 (HU), +1-757-269-7363 (Jlab)
| Email: kohlm at jlab.org
| Cell: +1-757-256-5122 (USA)
|
| Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Bd. 66, Rm. 6,
| Phone: +49-40-8998-6406, Cell: +49-171-101-1967
+---------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Olympus
mailing list