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
- 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.
