Agenda
Lukas Describes the CB Agenda, dedicated to the modified by-laws draft. Introduces the important changes in the draft. Original proposal:
Follows a discussion regarding the draft, that is updated following suggestions from the CB and then voted paragraph per paragraph. Important discussion topics were:
In the end, the final text is approved by acclamation.
Lukas explains the proposed search committee election, explains the reason for having the committee elected. Describes the first paragraph where the composition of the SC is explained.
Sergio points out that the SC election procedure is not explicitly described (how many preferences can each member of CB express). Lukas explains that each member of the CB makes up to 5 preferences.
Lukas explains how candidates for the SC are chosen: volunteers integrated if needed by the election organizers. At least 7 candidates are requested. Lukas propose to vote the paragraph as it is and add Sergio’s corrections for the next CB. Piera proposes to modify the text online as the discussion proceeds. Lukas agrees and implements the corrections in the text.
Charles points out that the procedure for the volountering is not clear. Asks how long the volounteering will be open. Lukas answers one week. Charles says that he is surprised that the SC is elected. Lukas answered that the FB suggested this solution. Darko proposes that the candidate with the highest number of votes should be the chair. Lukas answers that it is easier for people in the SC to choose their own chair. Thomas asked what happens if the candidates with the least votes are tied. Markus asks to have a clear timeline for this process. Lukas explains the idea for timing but Markus explains that it doesen’t fit with the meeting timing. Lukas proposes 6 months so for Spokeperson elections in november that there is a face to face discussion at the analysis meeting.
Piera asks if these rules applies also for the CB chair, Lukas answer yes. It is pointed out that then the election will start before the november meeting. The vote will probably be electronic. Lukas starts modifying the text. Follows discussions with Karl-Heinz for the phrasing. Lukas points out that it is the process of searching candidates for the SC should start 6 months before.
Lukas asks for further comments on the first paragraph and proceeds to vote. Darko asks how ties will be treated. Follows discussion.
Lukas describes the second paragraph. Explains that CB members has been changed to institutional representatives so that every institution is represented Jörg points out that not all CB members are institutional representatives and proposes an “and” . Miguel says that then it’s up to the institutions to deal with it and it’s ok as long that all institutions are represented. Julian asks the word “expected” to be removed, everybody agrees and Lukas corrects. Glennys and Markus makes english phrasing suggestions. Thomas asks what if the “must have the opportunity” is not fulfilled for example for major force reasons (for example accidents) or if the SC is not reachable. Lukas answers that the SC should always be reachable. Miguel proposes the chance of adding substitutes in case of accidents. Radomir points out that the rules may be too complicated and EO should always provide guidance . Lukas and Lorenzo points out that there is a sentence that in a way provides that. Piera says that the written rules are useful. Karl-Heinz says that the SC should be available for consultations. Charles says that the rules as written there are not really implying this. Lukas explains better how the phrasing was intended. Phrasing is adjusted with suggestions by Glennys and others. Lukas points out that we’re not writing literature. Lukas points out that the final goal of the phrasing is to force the SC to consult the EO in the case that a single candidate is foreseen. Piera proposes to write that the EO should remember the rules to the SC. Lukas and Lorenzo answer that that should be obvious but since the sentence would be added to the first paragraph propose to go back to that later. Lukas points out the problem of making it enough open to everyone in the collaboration to propose a candidate but not too overwhelming for the SC to be contacted by everyone in the collaboration. Radomir suggests that “call” should be substituted with “contact”. Discussion follows to find a verb that implies verbal contact and excludes email but not limits to phone calls. Talk is chosen. Sergio says that “the SC can contact any member of the collaboration” is superfluous. Glennys says that it doesn’t do any harm. Glennys suggests alternative phrasing.
Lukas explains the rest of the paragraph. Karl-Heinz asks to invert 4 weeks and 6 weeks putting as a general rule 6 weeks with the exception of the CB chair elections. Thomas propose to write the general duties instead of the procedure. Markus and Karl-Heinz proposes that the period should be 6 weeks for all elections, the text is modified accordingly.
Lukas explain the sentence “it is possible to have one candidate...” and why it is there: to allow the possibility of going on if it’s the only way (i.e. people re-elected for a second term). Miguel asks what happens if the CB is not ok with the list of candidates (in particular if it is one) and the SC cannot find any more. Glennys proposes a different phrasing that underlines that the possibility of one candidate should be avoided at all costs. Discussion follows about the CB vote on the list and what to do if it rejects it (Piera, Antonella, Paolo). Paolo asks if it applies only in case of single candidate or not. Lukas answer that it applies to every case. Esteban answer that the SC only makes a suggestion. Sergio proposes that the CB in the case of rejecting the list of SC with only one candidate should propose an additional name. Antonella agrees and says if the CB says no it has to provide another candidate, and it has time to do it because it should be known in advance the situation is happening. Glennys suggests a different phrasing which would leave the EO some space without explicitly mentioning the different cases in the text. Mathias says that the CB should trust the SC and then Sergio’s proposal of the CB proposing candidates is undermining the idea of SC itself. Esteban replies that it was the situation at last meeting. Fred says that we are looking for a safe guard that the SC is doing a good job. Proposes to add that the CB or the spokeperson depending on the election should watch on the SC. Markus agrees and adds something practical: we have 3 election ahead and in 2023 it is to be forseen that there will be less and less candidates so not to put too much constraints on the hypotesis of a single candidate. A discussion follows on the appropiate english definition of “election” and “list” . Lukas says that if the SC worked well and the CB does not agrees on a single candidate there is a real problem. Glennys says that it is possible that a new candidates comes out when a single candidate is found even if the SC worked well. Fred suggests to add 2 weeks for the CB after the 6 weeks to identify other candidates even if he doesn’t like the Idea of CB chosing candidates. “the CB accepts the list or the CB has 2 more weeks to find another candidate”. Lukas points out that the SC is not obliged to keep the candidate list secret. Charles says that in case of this problem the SC should have already contacted the EO in advance and they should have informed the CB so proposes to removes the lines where the CB should be contacted since it should be automatic. Karl Heinz proposes to formulate the lines more vague. Glennys proposes again the 2 extra weeks. Glennys says that it can happens that someone backs out at the last minute. Lorenzo says that we cannot specify all the possible cases and in case of problems it should go back to the EO. Piera seconds Charles’ position. Lukas summarizes that there are two currents: one that wants to specify and the other that wants to put everything in the hands of the EO. Glennys says that there is the need of explicitly saying tha the CB has the right to vote on the issue. Miguel says that we’re looking at one case but for example not covering the case where the SC does not find any candidate. Charles says that if the CB should take some actions the list shouldn’t be released to the CB at the same time at the collaboration when it is “final”. Lukas says that if we talk about “recomandations” from the SC then someone should approve the list and make it formal. Jörg says that if we are looking for a way out and since there is the possibility anyhow in the next paragraph for the CB to vote “no” to the only candidate, then removing the CB approval from the current paragraph does not changes anything. Lukas hopes that imposing the 6 weeks and using a vague formulation allows the time to find a solution to most problems. Paolo points out that in the current by-laws there is no CB approval of the list, and this is a voting before the election that gives some danger. Markus agrees but says that there should is only a general verification that the list fulfills some requirement but not a real vote. Lukas says that the list was always accepted by acclamation. Miguel suggestes some changes and Lukas implements them. Piera asks what a “viable” candidate is and Lukas answers that a viable candidate is one that could be voted and is willing to participate. Piera asks what the need is for this and Miguel points out that anyone can be proposed, even not viable ones, and it’s the SC job to select the viable ones. Charls proposes to write directly “provide the election organizers with normally two or three candidates per office”. Lukas implements the text . Antonio points out that if there is “two” then if a candidate runs for both officies there might be one candidate left for the second office voted. Discussion follows and leaving only “normally three” is proposed but Lukas says that then two would be and exception and we shouldn’t run on exceptions. Miguel proposes “preferably three” instead and Lukas agrees and corrects the text. Work on the text is done. Jörg asks again to add both institutional representatives and the CB members and the modification is implemented. Radomir asks to remove the sentence “all members of the search committe should be fully involved in the selection process” discussion follows on the meaning of this sentence. Lukas and Jörg says that the problem that happened before was peopole in the SC did not communicate. Darko asked if it is clear that the members of the SC could not be candidates. Piera answer that it was never writtern Glennys proposes that the 6th of the candidates to the SC should be kept as a replacement in the case that one of the SC member is selected as candidate for the office. Miguel asks what do we do if a member of the SC is “partially” involved. Work on the text is performed. Glennys points out that now there is no official line in the case for only one candidate. Piera points out that since the SC has already talked to each member of the CB they should understand if there is a problem with the single candidate or not and could talk to the CB members who are against a single candidate. Sergio points out that it can work only if the list is known with advance. Charles and Marcus comment that any kind of pre-vote would damage the candidates. Lukas that the FB asked explicit rules for the single candidate. Marcus asks to vote for the text without the last sentence with requires the CB to be contacted in the case of the single candidate. Piera seconds it. We proceed with two votes: the first for removing the sentence and the second for the final text of the paragraph. The vote to remove the sentence passes. Ralf proposes an additional week in the case of a single candidate for additional candidates to step forward. Antonio says that we are trying to provide the best rules for the SC to work properly in 6 months and we can’t then allow that in one week we add another candidate and that there’s already a sentence saying that in case of problems the EO should be contacted. Markus propose to vote the existing text and Miguel seconds it. Lukas reads it out loud. The text is approved. Glennys points out that for her it is not good that the SC members cannot be candidates, Antonella points out that there is nothing written against it. Lukas modifies the first paragraph adding that the first of the non-elected members of the SC serve as a reserve. Discussion on the text follows and the text is approved by acclamation.
Lukas presents the Agenda.
Fred gives a presentation about a proposal for a third annex at the Auger-TA MoU for data sharing related to the Auger@TA. (Auger@TA presentation)
Karl-Heinz points out that we need to establish a clear timeline for all Auger-TA joint works including this. Darko asks if TA is interested in deploying TA stations at the Auger site. Fred answers that they aren’t. Glennys asks if this analysis is productive in order not to misuse precious manpower. Fred explains the scientific importance of the study. Jorg asks if there is any use of this data for arrival direction studies, Fred answers that the MoU states that the shared data is only for station-to-station comparison. Lukas proposes to approve the MoU and charge the spokesperson to negotiate the important details about the work with TA responsible. CB approves by acclamation.
Karl-Heinz makes a presentation about the status of the issues regarding Arrival Directions and data sharing with TA. Karl-Heinz asks what does the CB thinks about releasing one more year to the IC-TA-Auger working group mainly for political reasons (since IC and TA are releasing new data) . Miguel agrees. Markus asks what happens with the new reconstruction to the threshold. Piera and Esteban answers that we will try to do as we did for the VCV to evolve the threshold to conserve the original dataset as possible. Karl-Heinz then goes on discussing the possibility of submitting a joint Auger/TA large scale anisotropy to ICRC where there was no consensus, while doing it on a later joint paper seemed to be more consensual. KH proposes the possibility of starting contacts between spokesperson and no objection is recorded.
Karl-Heinz goes on to the discussion whether to approach TA for the Jonathan-Olivier analysis for anisotropies at HE. KH explains the main issues and possibilities regarding how to proceed in order not to miss something exciting nor to repeat the VCV-story. After discussion about the opportunities and risks, a final agreement is made so that the AD discuss it thoroughly with weekly phone calls and then reports to the Spokesperson and science coordinators what is its suggestion on how to proceed (and possibly contact TA).
Regarding last meeting’s minutes it is decided to postpone the approval since there has been few time to read them and someone did not read them.
Ingo presents the status of management (see project management slides). Miguel asks about our debts with the landowners and since when we have them. Ingo answers that some of them had not collected their payments. Charles adds some comments and changes wrt the preliminary report about the SSD/SDU review (see slides).
Lukas shows the Project Mangement Plan with the modifications by Ingo and asks if there are objections to these modifications. No objection is noted.
Lukas shows the letter by Lino to add the institution of Politecnico di Milano with the OC payments carried by the INFN. Lukas points out that this is a collaborating institution without a seat at the CB but just an addition to the institutions in the author list. It is approved by acclamation.
Also the request for the incorporation of CEFET/RL Brazil is approved by acclamation.
Lukas proposes the meeting dates for 2018. Esteban asks to vote as usual by electronic vote to have the time to check the availability.
Markus proposes since the little economic availability to reduce the number of meetings from 3 to 2, eliminating the March meeting and moving the analysis meeting to april-May in the northern hemisphere. Antonella agrees. Markus proposes to set up a small committee to discuss the options and possibly start already in 2018. Federico says that the meeting in Malargüe are important for Argentinian collaborators that have hard times reaching Europe. Julian proposes one/two longer meeting in malargue and a bunch of short topic-dedicated meeting. Tiina agrees with marcus and Antonella adding that with AugerPrime they will need to come to Malargue a lot and therefore funding for coming to the meeting will be fewer. Carla points out that two meetings are fine and we need to add modern communication tools to make the meeting available to those who couldn’t afford to come. Glennys proposes a poll to see the feeling about this. Lukas agrees and the poll is performed.
Discussion follows and Lukas proposes to discuss it at the CB in June and to think about the fact that in North America there are no volunteers for hosting it.
Coffe break
KH presents the executive committee report. Markus suggests to describe the procedure to connect to EDMS on the wiki page.
Publications Committee Report, presented during opening session
Conference Committee Report, presented during opening session
Radomir presents the report of the Data Release Task on behalf of Andreas. Asks for a vote about whether to continue the DRT for 2017 or change task leader. KH and Marcus point out that it is an heavy duty with lots of work to be done. Charles points out that lots of other experiments have open data and this allows also possible “auger masterclasses” and similar. Julian suggest to work together with external institutions for support the data release task. Lukas points out that we need at minimal tool in short time because people is asking what we are doing and the task has to move forward. Ralph points out that Andreas wanted to go with something similar to KCDC and wonders if he’s available to do something different or prefers not to go on. Lukas concludes that we will encourage Andreas to continue but push for a faster moving forward.
Radomir presents the FD shift report. Radomir proposes to reduce the shifters for the april-may shifts from 5 to 4. Julian asks why this can be done since for each shifter there is a number of shifting hours he’s covering. Lukas proposes to clarify the hour that each shifter has to provide, since with remote shifts it is more complicated.
Tim presents the Analysis Archiving Policy for AERA (Analysis policy presentation). Piera appreciate this work and points out that it is already mentioned in the by-laws. She says that a paper should not go out if the data and code are released to the collaboration somewhere. Darko proposes that all papers currently in EB will be asked to archive their codes and possibly data. Tim underlines that we should find a balance between having a good base to restart a work left by something but not putting too much extra-work on people. Julien points out that in Germany PhD thesis has to be reproducible for 10 years. Carola suggests to try with one paper to learn what are the difficulties. KH proposes in future to add to the PC, who is already burdened with work, an additional member with this specific purpose (and with the technical expertise). Jorg seconds Darko’s and Carola’s idea to work on the current EB and proposes to see a report on how does this worked out at the meeting in June. Miguel proposes to make it mandatory for papers and official plots and results presented at conferences. Lukas proposes to see at the CB in june an in-progress and a rule on the page for November, or even before if it’s possible.
Bruce presents the CTA photometer data sharing. Lukas points out that this is atmospheric data that is open-access so we don’t need to sign an MoU and this is only to inform the CB.
The reviews where covered in the Project Managemt Report.
Organizer for November 2017: Marcus Niechciol