Sergio Petrera opened the CB session and distributed a list of CB representatives and replacements.
Agenda
Slides: Project Management Report
Paul Mantsch displayed the contributions to operations funding from 2001-2010, noting there are only a handful of groups which have not yet met their obligations. Roughly 3 million AR$ remain in reserve. Paul noted that 60 MoU's covering 84 institutes have now been signed.
Next, Paul described his proposal for changes in the scheme for observatory operations financing. In the past, a preliminary funding request was made in August, with approval (or not) coming from the FB in September. In November the OCL was updated, and in December the final funding request including overdue funds was submitted. Paul explained that having two funding requests tends to confuse the funding agencies and proposed rearranging the timetable in order to make a single funding request possible. The proposed change involves updating the OCL in August, with September approval by the FB, and a December update including any overdue funds. The downside of the new approach is that it requires assessing the number of senior personal in August, earlier than before. The CB needs to approve the new scheme.
Paul reported that HEAT had completed it's ORR and that the review panel will provide a report and follow-up recommendations. HEAT still needs formal approval from the CB.
Paul explained that the Auger North task force is now defunct. Now there is an RDA program focusing on detector R&D for the southern observatory, with Fred Sarazin leading the program. The CB will need to approve Fred as the task force leader. Tiina Sumorijarvi asked who is serving on the task force, and Paul replied that there is an RDA mailing list.
Slides: Operations Budget and Funding
Ingo Allekotte was invited to present details of the 2011 budget. He noted that operations in 2010 closed about 6% below budget. The main changes in 2010 include: higher than expected costs for LA operation; high costs for building and vehicle maintenance; reduced costs for radio maintenance; and some deferred expenditures, including maintenance of electrical systems. The surplus from previous years is not transferred to the following year, but rather is folded into the reserve.
Concerning the 2011 budget, Ingo noted that inflation is somewhat higher than projections (26% rather than the 25% expected) and that the US$ to AR$ exchange rate is below expectation (4.05 rather than the expected 4.20). Furthermore the FB recommended a budget reduction to 90% of the proposed budget. These considerations have motivated a deferment of major expenditures. Ingo also reported an increase in payment to landowners from 20 AR$ to 70 AR$ per tank per year retroactive to January 2007. Roberto Mussa asked to see a breakdown of the 2011 budget. Ingo replied that he displayed the information at the last meeting, and noted that it is available online.
Sergio Petrera requested approval from the CB for the changes to the financing schedule described by Paul Mantsch. The CB approved by acclamation.
Sergio next asked the CB to approve Fred Sarazin as the RDA task force leader. The CB approved by acclamation.
Letter: Change of status of Olomouc group to full member
Sergio displayed a letter from Jan Ridky concerning the Olomouc group, which has been an associate member via the Prague group. The Olomouc group is now eligible for full membership and has prepared an MoU. Matthias Kleifges noted that there is a requirement of a minimum of 3 senior members for full membership; Sergio confirmed that this condition has been met and that the MoU is signed. The CB confirmed the Olomouc group for full membership by acclamation.
Slides: Hawaii group
Sergio informed the CB that Jim Beatty had previously sent an email supporting a group from the University of Hawaii to become Auger Members. Jim came forward and briefly introduced the group of 3 faculty, 3 postdocs and a number of graduate students. Jim then invited Peter Gorham to address the CB. Peter noted that an MoU with U. Hawaii (UH) participation currently exists via association with OSU. He noted the collaborative work on AMBER and expressed enthusiasm about the opportunity to test the GHz ideas at Auger. Peter described the expertise and experience of the three faculty members (Gorham, Varner, Macchiarolu) interested in Auger related activities, including installation of AMBER in collaboration with OSU. The AMBER project has come to an agreement with the Auger collaboration to set up a prototype station on site to evaluate the system with tagged EAS. As the group also has experience in geosynchroton modeling and detection, there are prospects for future Auger involvement even if the AMBER efforts do no yield promising results. Peter also noted the group's general interest in UHECR and neutrinos.
Jim Beatty explained that the UH group is interested in full membership, and pending encouragement from the CB, would prepare a separate MoU, but share CB representation with OSU. Jim Matthews questioned whether it was necessary to share CB representation. Dave Nitz noted that there are FTE requirements to qualify for independent CB representation. Ad van den Berg asked Peter Gorham how many FTE he estimated would be available from his group. Peter replied that the integrated FTE for AMBER would be significant, probably in the range of 1-2, with all of the group members listed participating at some level. Ad next asked whether the FTE commitment would increase or decrease after completion of the AMBER project. Peter replied that if AMBER proves to be successful, efforts would be ramped up, and, if appropriate, an attempt could be made to construct an array the size of the FD system including ongoing maintenance. If AMBER turns out not to be feasible, Peter advised the group would consult the collaboration concerning the next most sensible steps, including the possibility of developing other Auger-related activities. Mathias Kleifges asked whether the UH collaborators were all from the physics department, and Peter replied that one was from electrical engineering. Sergio Petrera invited further questions and encouraged the UH group to develop a scientific plan and present it in the future. Lukas Nellen noted that the CB was required to formally encourage the UH group to move forward on a proposal, prepare an MoU, and make a presentation for membership approval at the next collaboration meeting. The CB approved to encouraged UH to proceed by acclamation.
Slides: Romania
Sergio next invited Gabriel Toma to introduce the Romanian groups, which have proposed to establish Romania as associate member country through Germany. Gabriel described the background of the Romanian group, the personnel, facilities, interests and areas of expertise.
Octavian Fratu was next invited to further discuss potential Romanian efforts, including wireless communications and sensor networks, in which his group specializes.
Gabriel Toma returned to present further information about the group, including some discussion of contributions to ASPERA and HEAP-mm. Personnel include 4 faculty, 2 students in physics analysis, and 4 students in wireless communications.
Sergio Petrera asked Hans Bluemer to reiterate the proposal for country membership for Romania. Hans explained that proposal calls for Romania to become an associate member country, with an initial membership period of 3 years. An agreement with KIT would be established such that costs and responsibilities are well defined. Ad van den Berg asked how many FTE the Romanian groups would expect to bring. Gabriel suggested that it was not certain at this point, but should be substantial. Dave Nitz noted that some efforts are in need of rather immediate help, and asked Gabriel if the Romanian groups would be willing to address such issues now. Gabriel answered in the affirmative, and Ad noted that a proposal would be set forth at the TB. Sergio reiterated the proposal for the Romanian groups : After a 3 year period of associate country status, Romania could be considered for status as a full member country. The same process is currently being pursued by the Croatian group. Lukas Nellen called for the CB to vote on accepting Romania as an associate country, and to encourage the groups to develop a funding profile and to contribute to tasks in which they have expertise over the next 3 years. The CB approved the proposal by acclamation.
Slides: The physics case at AERA
Sergio Petrera asked the CB to consider the issue of new proposals and invited Andreas Haungs to present the case for AERA-SD-core.
AERA-SD-core would comprise an additional hexagon SD's with 433m spacing located around the AERA stations. This addition would allow for better SD core and directional resolution, better energy reconstruction and a factor 2 higher efficiency below 1e17 eV. The primary objective is to exploit these superior measurements to gain a deeper insight into the capabilities of the radio detection technique as well as a better understanding of radio emission mechanisms. The proposal calls for 6 tanks to be moved to the AERA-core area. Further details were to be presented at the TB.
Tiina Sumorijarvi asked which 6 tanks would be used. Ad van den Berg noted that this would be discussed at the TB. Antoine Letessier-Selvon asked for some clarification regarding participation of these tanks in the trigger. Andreas noted that there is an option for the tanks to contribute to the trigger or not. Antoine questioned the motivation to bring tanks to the antenna array, rather than the other way round. Ad replied that the desire to understand radio emission mechanisms motivates the specific tank placement in the proposal.
Slides: Additional SD trigger
Next Dave Nitz was invited to discuss the proposed new SD trigger. Dave noted that the proposal involves a deconvoluted ToT (so-called ToTd) trigger for the SD, which would remove the characteristic decay time of muons before applying ToT. This would lower the energy threshold, and increase acceptance for neutrino events and pick up more stations near the edges of events. Dave said that small modifications to the trigger PLD code and the LS code would be needed. The proposal is to install the ToTd trigger in the infill area now, monitor the performance on these stations for a few months, and if it proves successful, roll out the ToTd to the full array.
Mathias Kleifges asked if Dave's presentation was in essence the same as the presentation Pierre Billoir had made previously in the meeting, and Dave responded that it was. Ralf Engel asked if the higher rates would pose a problem to the DAQ, and Antoine replied that bandwidth problems were not expected.
Document: AMON proposal
Paul Sommers was invited to present a proposal related to Auger participation in AMON, a Astrophysical Multimessenger Virtual Observatory. The purpose of the program is to exploit sub-threshold triggers for transient phenomena, combining information from different observatories to increase sensitivity. The emphasis is on non-optical messengers, with an objective to generate alerts for optical follow-up of events. A multi-lateral agreement is anticipated including including IceCube, LIGO, Auger, HAWC, Swift, Fermi, Veritas and others. The AMON program will involve a 1 year trial phase during which alerts will be shared about sub-threshold triggers, but during which no data will be made public. After the trial period, data may be made public in accordance with an MoU. Auger can initially participate in such a program by reporting scalar surges which might be expected from GRB. Later, pairs of EeV showers arriving close in time and direction could be reported. Further information on AMON, and a draft MoU are available here: http://amon.gravity.psu.edu
Sergio invited question on Paul's proposal. Karl-Heinz Kampert complimented the idea, but pointed out that such collaborations already exist (eg. Magic-IceCube) and noted that he disliked language in the proposal referring to "US and international observatories" as it seemed to put the US in a privileged position. Paul agreed that the language was not ideal. Jim Mathews asked what exactly the anonymity and confidentiality promised by the report was meant to guarantee. Paul relied that the larger community would not be made aware of which experiments generate alerts, at least during the trial phase. Instead, events would be characterized as sub-threshold triggers detected by "AMON." Lukas Nellen noted that since this proposal involves a new science case, the spokespersons should maintain contact with AMON and guide the collaboration on the next step. He proposed a vote for Karl-Heinz and Jim to work on the project with the AMON collaboration, which was approved by acclamation.
Slides: Executive Committee
Karl-Heinz Kampert was invited to report on behalf of the executive committee. Karl-Heinz explained that the committee is charged with dealing with urgent and pressing items related to the observatory, preparing topics for discussion at the CB and TB, and posting minutes on the FNAL web pages. Karl-Heinz gave a quick summary of 9 topics of discussion a the December telephone meeting, the minutes of which are available on the CB pages. He also displayed a proposal for operating cost contributions of associated developing countries with the objective of reducing the OCL of scientists from developing nations to 50% of the nominal level, determined on an annual basis. This reduced contribution should increase with time and reach 100% within a few years. It is understood that this proposal, if approved by the CB, must be approved by the FB as well.
Hans Bluemer asked for a definition of a "developing" country. Karl-Heinz replied that in the context of this proposal, Bolivia and Vietnam are the countries which could potentially benefit, though Bolivia is no longer an active participant in Auger. Danilo Zavrtanik suggested applying some more thought to the definition of developing; for example one might add Croatia and Romania to this category. Sergio concurred that a clearer definition should be prepared for the next meeting. Antoine Letessier-Selvon reminded the CB that a senior physicist in Vietnam has been working for Auger but not signing papers in order to keep the financial burden low on the host state. Paul Sommers proposed coming up with a formula to decrease payments over time, rather than bring up the topic each year. Hans Bluemer noted that the proposal was really derived for the special case of Vietnam, and questioned whether it was sensible to devise general rules to accommodate a specific case. Karl-Heinz replied that the issue was indeed triggered by the case of Vietnam, but was extended to constitute a more general proposal. Giorgio Matthiae expressed general enthusiasm about the idea of assisting developing nations. Jim Matthews questioned whether there was more than 1 country at the current time to whom such a proposal would apply, and suggested that if not, a specific proposal should be prepared for now for the case of Vietnam. Hans Bluemer noted that he preferred the term "associate" countries over "developing" countries. Lukas Nellen pointed out that some associate countries are ramping up for full membership, while others (developing nations) may just be in the earlier stages of developing their science programs. Antoine reiterated the case for making a special proposal for now to deal with Vietnam. Lukas replied that there is motivation to address the problem in general, as it involves a changes to the by-laws. Karl-Heinz agreed to reformulate the proposal to specifically address Vietnam, to remove the annual review, and to send it out for review.
Karl-Heinz next explained that the FB has recommended considering the issue of cost sharing for newly added partners who did not make a capital contribution to the experiment during construction. A proposal is needed to define what level of contribution defines a fair compensation. A committee has been proposed to take on this topic, with proposed membership including Paul Mantsch, Giorgio Matthiae, Hans Bluemer and Lukas Nellen.
Alan Watson asked whether this proposal will involve changing the practice that new countries have to make a capital contribution, and noted that the proposal seems to constitute a weakening of this established policy. Karl-Heinz replied that it is the charge of the committee to consider this situation on a more general basis given the maturity of the experiment. Paul Mantsch noted that this charge was a recommendation of the FB and is somewhat open to interpretation. Sergio Petrera solicited a vote on the proposed committee membership, which was approved by acclamation.
Slides: Publication Committee
Carola Dobrigkeit summarized the work of the publications committee on behalf of Piera Ghia who was unable to attend. Carola noted that there is a new PC website and mailing list, information about which has already been distributed to the collaboration. The committee has reviewed some 45 papers in the last 15 weeks. Carola reminded the audience that for conference proceedings, authors should send the manuscript to the PC at least 2 weeks before the deadline to allow time for PC and collaboration review. Furthermore even non-Auger papers authored by collaborators should be sent to the PC as a courtesy. The PC has also been attempting to increase the ratio of FAL (Full Author List) to SAL (Short Author List) papers, including for example the LTP paper and potential future papers describing HEAT and AMIGA.
Slides: Conference Committee
Enrique Zas reported on behalf of the conference committee. Enrique informed the collaboration that since about 1 month the committee has comprised new membership, including himself, Ingo Allekotte, Stephan Coutu and Antonella Castellina. Enrique displayed statistics related to country representation at recent conferences, and offered some remarks on conference policies. In general, only published results should be presented at conferences, and that results intended for the ICRC should not be presented prior to that conference. In soliciting speakers for conferences, the committee will contact national representatives to request names of potential speakers including special circumstances which may render talks especially important for certain collaborators.
Slides: AugerAccess
Ruben Squartini was invited to update the CB on the status of Auger Access. Ruben noted that the current link is providing about 1 Mb/s, which is not sufficient bandwidth to transmit both event and calibration data. Tracing the bottlenecks is difficult due to the multitude of network segments. Auger Access is supposed to provide 40Gb/s maximum transfer, with about 1Gb/s allocated to Auger. In reality, about 32 Mb/s has been achieved, which will allow some 340Gb/day data transfer, or about 30x the bandwidth which has been thus far available. Ruben explained that work is in progress by network engineers to improve routing and tunneling problems, and that high performance networking tools are being installed and tested.
Memo: AugerNext
Hans Bluemer was invited to initiate a discussion regarding AugerNext, and displayed a draft proposal defining the charge of the proposed AugerNext working group. Antoine Letessier-Selvon argued that it was not appropriate to continue discussions as the proposal had been available only a short time. Mario Pimenta echoed this view and suggest that the spokesperson should provide guidance on how to continue on the issues. Sergio Petrera explained that the decision to pursue an AugerNext task force was discussed at the previous collaboration meeting and that a decision was taken then to devise a proposal for the current meeting, and Hans added that the CB had previously agreed on the idea, but not the details of the text, which was deferred to the current meeting. Paolo Privitera stated that he also felt that too little time had been provided to contribute feedback on the current text. Jim Beatty suggested deferring the decision to a future EVO meeting, adding that one should not wait until the next collaboration meeting in 6 month's time. Antoine added that he would be happy to discuss further the proposal, but needed time to discuss with colleagues, institutional representatives and funding agencies first. Karl-Heinz Kampert expressed the importance of proceeding with the AugerNext plan, but added that is essential for the collaboration to fully back the effort. He proposed starting with Hans' document and making some iterations after discussions via EVO or at the coming analysis meeting. Hans Bluemer stated his general puzzlement about the reluctance to discuss the issue at the present time. Mario Pimenta replied that due to delicate political concerns, the task force should take on board broader institutional representation with leadership from the spokespersons. Karl-Heinz proposed to seek wide consultation within the collaboration on how to proceed. Lukas Nellen proposed that, as a practical interim solution, the CB, Hans, and the spokespersons should consult, prepare a document, and attempt to finalize the discussion at a special CB meeting to be inserted into the analysis meeting in Santiago de Compostela. Sergio Petrera backed Lukas' suggestion, and the discussion was terminated.
Slides: Analysis meeting in Santiago de Compostela
Ines Valino described the details of the analysis meeting in Santiago de Compostela.
Proposal: Dates of meetings in 2012
Sergio Petrera proposed that the CB vote electronically on the dates of future meetings.
Ioana Maris was proposed as the organizer of the next collaboration meeting. The CB approved by acclamation.