CWP Editorial Board - Live Notes
Present: Graeme Stewart, John Harvey, Maria Girone, Liz Sexton-Kennedy, David Lange, Eduardo Rodrigues, Michel Jouvin, Thomas Kuhr, Dario Menasce, Mark Neubauer
Apologies: Simone Campana
See slides attached to agenda.
Draft 2 released on time: few tens of readers already, mostly minor comments and typo fixes
Typo fixes accepted immediately (by the ghost writers team) in Google Docs. PDF kept unchanged (to avoid messing up line numbers that could be used in plain text comments)
Ghost writers: Liz volunteered to help, offer warmly accepted! If any other EB member wants to also help, please let the ghostwriter team know.
Presentation at LHCb workshop well received.
Cross-reference of CWP papers: proposal from ghost writers, see slides
Accepted, preparing the list of identifiers for ArXiv
ACTION for Eduardo: to allocate HSF-CWP numbers to papers.
Final CWP version: want to hold our timeline of a release on Dec. 15
TODO list started: see slides (and email to EB) for the URL. Need your Google ID to be registered in the EB list.
Plan remains to move to LaTeX but last tests show that we can do it late in the process (1 week before the release).
May allow comments to be open for an additional week, but decide next week: should continue to push people to comment as soon as possible.
At the first EB, suggestion by Mike to find a way to impact assessment of roadmap actions in each section, like this is done in S2I2 proposal: a global impact statement (typically ½ page) per section. See example in slides: has the potential to be very contentious...
For the CWP would requirement a significant amount of work to add
Pros: draw attention of the reader, could help with funding proposals drawing support from the CWP
Cons: adds little over what is already in the document, Conclusions section matches our important criteria to important areas of work; We have little time for convergence and may jeopardize our timeline; may break the consensus
Ghost writers proposal: do not add a formal impact statement, leave it to the specific funding proposals that will be made out of the CWP, like S2I2 or the project strategic plans like the one planned by WLCG
Liz supported impact statements - there are non-controversial common elements that could be highlighted. A summary of the summary is not bad for certain readers like funders who don’t want to understand the technical points. But also agrees on the practicalities raised by the ghost writers.
Mark - accepts risks of adding this late, but worried that then the CWP looks like a ‘laundry list’ of many items. Can we prioritise within areas?
We accept that global prioritisation not possible
Experiment variations on priorities are significant; should be mentioned when it makes sense in the CWP
Generally important that roadmap items provide enough information so that they can be properly targeted and prioritised for different audiences
We didn’t forget the prioritization, but think that it should be done by the projects that will use the CWP
John - we might be asked to provide additional information later, but that would be targeted at a specific audience (funding agencies, scientific panels, etc.)
Michel - e.g., pileup is an HL-LHC concern, not for LC, so priorities can change for different audiences
Thomas - better to finalise the CWP now, then look at impact later
Maria, Eduardo - supportive of general strategy proposed
CONCLUSION: we will not add impact statements.
ACTION for all: please ensure that the roadmap sections mention relevant experiment variations and provide enough information on plans so that they can be properly targeted and prioritised for different audiences/experiments/communities; ensure final conclusions target the right overall impact areas.
Graeme is speaking to a few theorists to get them to check/support the document
Liz wants to make sure that CMS input is integrated into the WG paper
To be chased with Taylor next week
Possible sharing of generated events was discussed - it’s possible in principle, but needs some convergence on the common generators (and tunings!) to be used
May in fact have some advantages if it was possible to do it when it comes to combination of results between ATLAS and CMS
May be mentioned as an open question for the future in the CWP
Maria sent SKA community the draft, and we agreed to also send it to LSST contacts
Next meeting not yet planned; iterations next week will be by email.