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 hypothes.is
• • 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

• Signatories discussion:
• • It's a community document - so everyone can sign
  • Call out the specifics of, e.g., coordinators signing
  • • To get formal signing by the experiments would be very heavy weight and too slow
  • Name, Institute, Experiment, Role
  • Ask all the EB people to sign now as a seed
    • https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBXwlNnQsxxZA3gVS1_KSpa8wRXGyk250EIsJwJ2T34/edit?usp=sharing

• 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