Agenda
The minutes of the previous CB meeting have been accepted without any objections.
The proposed host for the next analysis meeting is Naples, Italy (more details will be probably provided in November). All are in favour, no objections or abstentions. The CB voted the proposed dates: 1st choice (June 8-12, 2015): 16 - 2nd choice (June 15-19, 2015): 14 - abstentions: 9
The meeting will be held June 8-12, 2015 (well before ICRC deadline).
The CB voted the proposed dates for the November collaboration meeting, in Malargue: at the 1st round the first and the second choices were even, at the 2nd round the 1st choice was preferred with 24 Vs 15 votes (1 abstention)
The meeting will be held November 12-17, 2015 (Thu-Tue).
In the last CB new rules concerning the FD shifts have been approved, the calendar for 2014 has been covered, some remote shifters are still needed in Wuppertal.
The signing up for next year is opened since June 13th and it's almost empty. It's possible to choose between two options: Malargue or remote shift. Malargue shifters have cellular phones, but in any case it's worthwhile if they stay at the observatory also during remote shifts in case of emergency. Remote shifters should be trained as well as Malargue shifters. R.Smida recommended at least an expert shifter for crew (both remote and in Malargue). FD shifts will be assigned based upon paper signees, the author list is taken from a middle-year paper.
Michael Unger has become a science coordinator, he should be replaced in the PC and the suggested name is Darko Veberic.
All are in favor, no objections or abstentions.
Request (see slides for update)
Current policy: papers can be submitted to arXiv only after being accepted by journals.
The proposal is to allow authors to send papers directly to the arXiv at the same time they are submitted to the journal. The PC, consulting with the authors, will be responsible for the decision.
Discussion: the danger that a paper is not accepted is very low, usually papers we submit require only a minor revision and we could always upload the updates and the final version. It's in any case only an option. The CB was asked to vote the following proposal: papers could be submitted to arXiv at the same time they are submitted to the journal, after obtaining the PC approval.
Most of the CB is in favour (1 against and 2 abstentions) → the proposal was accepted.
LATMOS Letter of Intent and LATMOS presentation.
Two researcher from LATMOS requested the access to the Auger site for a short measurement campaign with the SDA (Short Dipole Antenna), because they want to understand if the short ms pulses observed in SDA channels are connected to CR interaction with air molecules.
SDA campaign will last 5 days in the period June-November. For that period they require an access to Auger data to look for coincidences. Minimal support will be required to the local staff. No veto has been presented from the Technical Board.
In case of a scientific publication we would require a FAL paper, with the external authors as first authors.
Statement for vote: authorise the Spokeperson to negotiate a MoU along these lines.
J.Rautenberg said that we have already a lot of on-going activity in the collaboration on this topic and we should thus make a clear statement that we want the access to their data because it's interesting also for us. L.Nellen answered that this statement is already in the MoU.
M.Roth suggested that, since we are going to share our data with them, they should also show us their findings.
D.Martello asked about publication policy and the answer was that these papers would go through the PC in the usual way, because anything that is CR related or has to do with our data is an Auger FAL paper.
A.Van Den Berg wondered if including us in the author list could produce too much noise, because we could be in a situation where we might have a claim that we cannot control and people would receive it as a CRs signal. L.Nellen and L.Perrone answered that we could also refuse to sign that paper and, in any case, the PC will guarantee what we are going to publish.
J.Rautenberg asked if we are allowed also to block their publications. KH.Kampert answered that any paper has to pass the PC but in principle we don't have any reason to block them.
M.Roth suggested that we may decide, in case we disagree with their paper, to put out just the minimal information for the paper, e.g. 5 days of timestamps. Antoine replied that they may need also direction and energy, but we shouldn't be too paranoiac because they are serious researchers and if we don't want to sign their paper, we could also publish another paper in disagreement with it.
L.Latronico suggested to specify in MoU which kind of data we want to share and KH.Kampert answered that this is already in the plan.
Vote: the MoU was approved unanimously.
MoU is not on a specific analysis but it's for a generic collaboration on several topics, it takes the basic rules of our collaboration policy.
As R.Engel pointed out, we already performed a joint analysis with IceCube about arrival directions and in that case only people involved in the analysis had access to the data.
M.Unger confirmed that such policy is mandatory since many analyses in, e.g. IceCube, are blind. Obviously data will be shared both ways, i.e. our data are open to IceCube and vice-versa.
L.Nellen stated that the sharing must be fair and specific details could be negotiate, the MoU annexes for each specific analysis will be available for the CB very soon.
A.Letessier-Selvon suggested to replace PAO with Auger in all these kinds of documents.
Vote: the MoU was approved unanimously.
It has been already discussed extensively on Thursday 20th, 2014, the day before the CB.
Statement for vote: recommendations have been received orally by the CB in the form reported on Thursday 20th, in the "Beyond 2015 session" (the written document will be sent soon).
UC is willing to receive constructive comments.
KH.Kampert explained that the final UC report has to be voted in the November meeting and is thus expected to be sent to the CB 3 weeks before. But there's a complication: the FB will meet just before the collaboration meeting and we will have to report on the status of the upgrades. So, by that time, KHK would like to have the UC report ready to present to the FB, with the specific clause that we will need to approve the document in the CB, i.e. few days after the FB. He emphasized that the UC will not come out of nothing and the collaboration will be fully engaged in the process, although usually the UC gets criticism rather than constructive comments, which would be very much appreciated. We will be able to submit the Technical Design Report in Spring 2015.
The report by the UC will be sent to the entire collaboration, as suggested by L.Cazon, and then, in order to avoid too much email pressure, we might use the institutional representative to collect comments - possibly constructive comments.
T.Suomijärvi asked about the schedule for construction: people from SDE is asking it because they have to ask for money in few months. D.Martello argued that also in Italy they have to ask for money for the next year almost now. But KHK replied that they have to wait for the final decision (November), i.e. in Germany they have asked money for a generic detector, but it's different from country to country. In any case we have first to make the selection and then discuss the details, it's a sequential work, it's a difficult situation but the collaboration must take its time.
F.Sanchez asked if it's possible to specify the requests for the Full Array in November and later for the smaller array. KHK replied that it's not possible, it has to be a single package to work. He urged all people in the CB to talk to their funding agencies, explaining the collaboration process to get the final decision and showing also the current funding profile (available in his slides), where most funding will be needed in 2016-2017.
F.Sanchez asked about the time scale for the decision on the small array. KHK answered that we must arrive in November with a decision, the detector requirements should arrive before 15th September.
L.Nellen asked if we should give the UC report to the SAC. KHK answered that we are not expected to do that even if two members of the SAC will have it anyway, as they are consultant to the UC; then they might decide to distribute it to the SAC. But A.Van Den Berg explained that they don’t want to interfere with the Collaboration process, so they will not comment on this interim report.
A.Letessier-Selvon asked if we have a written report from the SAC, KHK replied that he has it and he will distribute it to the CB.
A.Van Den Berg will upload material on Beyond 2015 on the Wiki page. KHK concluded that the proposed timescale is a challenge, but we have to do it.
Vote: the proposal was accepted.
L.Perrone closed the CB thanking again the organizers of the meeting.