Minutes of the Fermilab/D0 Group Meeting Sept 29, 1997 ---------------------------------------------------- Present: Bartlett, Cooper, Demarteau, Fisk, Flattum*, Fuess*, Greenlee*, Gruenendahl, Jonckheere, Klima, Li*, Lipton*, Melanson*, Merritt, Smith, White, Womersley* (* : partial attendance) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Neal Cason Group e-mail responses on admission were positive, except that group members have requested more information in general on the level of commitment of future collaborators. The IB representatives have requested to the chair of the IB that more information ought to be given for future applications and it is noted that this is on the agenda for this Thursday's IB meeting. A vote for admission of Neal Cason is called for in the next IB meeting and the projected vote of the Fermilab group is positive towards admission. 2. First Author proposal The vote on the first author proposal at the Bloomington workshop was negative. Since the issue is not brought up for further discussion it is assumed that no amendments to the proposal are being considered and that the issue is put to rest. 3. Forward Proton Detector The status of the FPD proposal was summarized. The concern of its financial impact on the baseline upgrade detector and its impact on the manpower was brought up again. It was pointed out that the effort had grown in scope from its first proposal and it was requested to find out how much the FPD effort has increased both in budget and manpower from its initial proposal. The overall sentiment of the group, though, is positive towards the FPD proposal. Since the letter from the spokespeople was a request to include the FPD proposal on the PAC agenda, we expect that the response from the Lab directorate will be discussed at the next IB meeting. 4. Membership of the Fermilab D0 group. Bill Cooper discussed the proposal which the panel has come up with regarding rules for membership of the Fermilab D0 group. He started out with mentioning that within any large group there will always be people who will differ in opinion regarding certain issues. Moreover, not all possible cases for membership can be covered in a finite set of guidelines. Therefore, some compromise will be necessary with any set of rules. The different sections of the proposal were then discussed one by one. Introduction: - In the past the Fermilab D0 group has had graduate students and some felt that graduate students were not covered under the general membership rules spelled out. After some discussion a vote was held, the outcome of which was unanimous, in keeping the language as is. That is, graduate students are considered to be covered under the current terms. Paragraph 3: - some members were confused regarding who could ask to become a Fermilab group member. As the rules state, in principle, anyone working on D0 who has a Fermilab appointment or is employed by Fermilab can ask to become a member. Their acceptance, however, is subject to the rules of acceptance as set forth in this document. - the issue of attribution with regard to objections submitted regarding a new member of the group was discussed. The majority of the group clearly preferred that making a public attribution of an objection should be at the discretion of the person making the objection rather than at the discretion of the IB representatives. It was agreed to leave the wording of that paragraph unchanged. - if a dispute regarding the admission of a new member cannot be resolved a vote of the full Fermilab group is called for and a simple majority is needed for the name of the applicant to be added to the Fermilab masthead list. It was discussed if simple majority should be changed to at least 2/3 majority. The sentiment was to leave the requirement as a simple majority. - it was pointed out that no timeline was given for resolution of an application for membership. It was decided that there should be some words to ensure that ample time is given for members to respond. It was suggested that a time period encompassing two weekends was appropriate for polls of the full group. - the draft membership rules state that membership will be retroactive to the date of application. It was suggested that if a member is accepted to the group, membership is retroactive to the date of working on the experiment at the adequate level. A vote was held with 7 in favor of making the change and 1 against. The wording will be changed. Paragraph 4: - a good part of the discussion was spent on classifying who would fall in the category of "visitors to D0 from non-D0 member institutions". There was some confusion regarding Fermilab guest scientists. It was agreed that Fermilab guest scientists are considered regular Fermilab members and thus would fall under the procedure outlined in item 3 and that no approval of the IB was needed. To cover the other cases it was suggested to replace the word "approval" by "advice". Paragraph 8 (and 6): - there was a worry that this paragraph could be interpreted as if the IB representatives made the final decision if a person would qualify to be on the author list. It was suggested to add to this paragraph the sentence: "We note that D0 collaboration rules may require further review of institutional author lists before they are incorporated in the D0 master authorship list." The vote was 8 in favor, with no objections Paragraph 8: - This paragraph was amended to change the frequency with which lists are to be provided to twice a year or upon request. The rules for membership will be amended by Bill Cooper following the discussions and suggestions received and the revised draft will be reviewed by the panel. The rules will then be submitted to the full group for ratification following the procedure outlined in the rules. All Fermilab group members are once again strongly encouraged to review the guidelines and contemplate its implications. If adopted, they will form the basis for the Fermilab masthead in the years to come. If you have any concerns or would like any clarification please send a note to the chair of the panel, Bill Cooper, with a copy to your IB reps, soon. We anticipate to move to a final vote on these guidelines during the week of October 6.