CWP Editorial Board Meeting

32/1-A24 (CERN)



Show room on map

Present: Graeme Stewart, John Harvey, Maria Girone, Predrag Buncic, Stefan Roiser, Simone Campana, Frank Gaede, Jean-Roch Vlimant, Mark Neubauer, Mike Sokoloff, Michel Jouvin, Peter Elmer


  • Suggestion to move to LaTeX now (for the second draft) and use
    • Not so good for comments though (no conclusion on this)


  • Which areas are the important ones? Can prioritise according to the 3 criteria.
  • Michel - thought the SCF wanted to know where community would focus and put additional effort.
    • At least rank by importance would help
  • Mike - trying to identify projects as high/medium/low would help. But what about the current level of resources? Does that need to be raised? (e.g., Geant)
    • Targets - people in experiments, to argue for what's important; funding agencies/labs (reassignment); new funding opportunities (e.g., S2I2)
  • John - SFT speaks to experiments to identify priorities (their inputs).
    • Propose an additional chapter/ranking for different areas?
  • Michel - is the HL-LHC different from the rest of the community? (Annex?). Ian B has been asked to write a WLCG strategy document arising out of the CWP. 
  • Mike - HL-LHC era, rather than HL-LHC only
    • Even between ATLAS, CMS and LHCb simulation priorities vary
  • Proposal
    • Pete and Mike make a pass at their vision of this. Then much easier for others to grasp what's being proposed.


  • Security
    • Michel feels that there is a coherent community that can write quickly. So we wait for that.
  • Event Generators
    • Graeme happy to write on behalf of EB to MCnet
    • Liz will speak with Taylor about the CMS input
  • Workload management
    • Have to see how things develop
    • Very worried this is not a community view
    • Michel to contact him.
  • Simone - no discussion on triggers, trigger rates, or what the online system would look like.
    • This is partly covered in the Reco section
      • It is quite a very weak statement
    • Mark - this impacts on prioritisation perhaps?
    • Simone - how does someone know where to contribute?
    • Contact trigger people and ask them to review that synthesis - Simone 
  • We agree deadline is 10 November for all additional sections


  • Mike: for the audience things should be comprehensible to the larger scientific computing community (e.g., SKA)
    • Seems we agree on that - should only need minor changes (supporting paragraphs)
      • Ask some other wider group of people to read the 2nd draft (Maria to ask Ian B to suggest)
    • Can be easy for us to fall into jargonising and we should avoid that
    • Agree to a glossary
  • Restructure the sections according to workflow, but no sub-sections
    • Graeme, Michel, Pete and John to propose something, then circulate



  • Timeline
    • WLCG will want to do something with this for the LHCC (end of November)
    • Broad agreement on the timeline proposed
    • For the individual documents we are asking people to move them also to arXiv


  • Review
    • John reminded us that section editors need to review their synthesised section
    • Jean-Roch will happily look at workflow management 


  • Next meeting - 16h Wednesday 8 November


There are minutes attached to this event. Show them.