From: william@physics.utoronto.ca (William Trischuk)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:45:17 -0500 (EST)



UEC Minutes -- March 20, 2004
---------------------------------

Present: Bose (GSA), Clark (GSA), Gottschalk, Hagopian, Tanaka,
Tschirhart, Trischuk, White, Zimmerman, apologies: Bloom,
Groer, Rolli.


Bicycle Rentals at the Lab (White):

- In an effort to address transportation for users without drivers
licenses he and Bruce Chrisman have been searching for a local
bicycle rental company. A prototype bicycle lending system already
exists at the lab although it could be more widely advertised, but
would be unlikely to be able to fill the demand. The URA has
offered to expand the system by buying some new bikes. Looking for
a way of sharing the bikes equitably. It was suggested that we
follow the housing model allocating a certain number of bikes to
the collaborations and requesting they manage the actual use
during the summer season. The URA's understanding was that these
bikes would be provided for transportation to/from the experiments
on site, not for recreational purposes. Chris will now solicit the
reaction of the experiments. GSA members have already expressed an
interest in being bike-wardens and/or first contact repair
people. Chris will consult with these people to suggest an
appropriate bicycle configuration. The goal would be to put this
in place for 'this season'. Will also plan to acquire helmets.


Users' Meeting Planning (White):

- A detailed schedule of talks for the two days of the meetings
was presented. Between half and two-thirds of the speakers have
been confirmed. Members of the organising committee have been
assigned to get names for the remainder of the talks. White
solicited feedback on 'proper' titles for some of the talks where
the content might not be 100% obvious.

- The next phase of organising the meeting is to take advantage of
the stellar speakers to attract local and state politicians to
visit Fermilab during the meeting.


Status of the Laboratory (Mike Witherell) - (Mike Witherell's presentation)

- Four major reviews will have been held in a recent 30 day
window. The accelerator review February 24-26
(http://www-bdnew.fnal.gov/doereview04/index.htm) was very
successful, given the recent performance of the machine. A URA
visiting committee came March 12/13. There was a DOE review of
Operations March 16-18
(http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/DOE_Review_TeV_Ops.html). The
annual program review will be held March 23-25.

- Have now delivered 0.11 fb^-1 to each collider experiment this
fiscal year in addition to about 0.25 fb^-1 as of the end of the
last fiscal year. We are three weeks ahead of the optimistic
luminosity goal and in the middle of a two weeks shutdown. Hope to
come out of this still ahead of design and continue integrating at
the higher than design rate similar to the last couple of
months. It should be possible to exceed the design goal of
0.3 fb^-1 for FY 2004 (0.55 fb^-1 total for Run II). We are
achieving record luminosities despite the fact that the p-Bar tax
is being extracted. The recycler is taking advantage of these
antiprotons and is being commissioned on schedule. At the
previous Accelerator review the lab was told these past 6 months
would be crucial. Have now been commended that the progress over
the 'last 7 months' has exceeded expectations. Must maintain the
campaign of 'operations, maintenance and upgrades' to continue on
the current rate of integrating luminosity.

- The biggest reward from the recent successful review is that 6
months from now there will only be a mini-review. The next full
review will be in February 2005. Q: Is the outcome of these
reviews just based on the current performance of machine complex?
A: Of course the performance of the machine is a prerequisite for
a successful review. But the review also reflects the planning
done for the next year. It is good for perspective and morale of
the people working on the accelerator to have received such a
positive review. Q: The 'problems' of the last year have
necessitated pulling in a number of people from elsewhere in the
lab. Will they soon be returning to their original tasks? A: Not
immediately, but that will happen to some extent in FY 2005 as
certain sub-projects end. Many projects (like the BPMs being worked
on by members of the Computing Division) are still in full swing
at this point. When those projects wrap up over the next year
those people will return to work on other projects within their
divisions Q: What about people were pulled into Recycler and
electron cooling? A: Those areas are still ramping up in their
staffing. So their return to other tasks is not currently being
planned.

- The Director provided an overview of all the physics going on at
the lab that he gave to the URA visiting committee. The collider
programme is well known but he included emphasis on the lesser
known pieces of the programme (such as the neutrino programme and
the goals of the switch-yard 120 effort). He highlighted the
results of the P5 exercise and the positive impact it has had on
the BTeV project. Discussed the long range planning exercise and
the charges being given to the Proton Driver and Linear Collider
R&D groups.

- The DOE Operations review went very well. They asked the lab to
prepare to discuss 'certain areas' of the lab operations, but when
it was all added up it turned out they wanted to look at
activities that involve something like 90% of the laboratory
budget... They endorsed Fermilab's plans for operations and how
the Lab is coping with the budget cuts that have resulted from the
flat-flat funding over the last few years. Q: Other labs have
gotten some budget relief from similar exercises. Will this be the
outcome here? A: Probably not. In fact the mandate of the review
committee seemed to be "Everything is so tight where can we find
efficiencies?". It seems unlikely that any were found. So the
likely outcome is that further cuts will be avoided.

- The Long Range Planning (LRP) Exercise drawing to a
conclusion. Hugh Montgomery (the Planning Committee chair) gave a
well attended talk in the auditorium 10 days ago. They considered
two scenarios: I) FNAL as host of a Linear Collider, with a
neutrino programme, LHC physics and other flavour, astro-particle
and non-Particle physics continuing at a lower level; II) the
Linear Collider is built off-shore or delayed. In the latter case
a neutrino programme based on a Proton Driver, seems to be
emerging as the highest priority for the lab, but contributions to
the off-shore linear collider, LHC physics and other activities
would be included as in scenario I. The LRP Committee report is
expected out May 1. Q: Will the report include a plot of funding
trade-offs considered? A: Probably not. The report will discuss
the financial implications of the choices but forecasting the
budget 15 years ahead is very difficult.

- The first Lehman review for BTeV will occur April 27-29. This
will be preceded by a directors review. An on-site review of the
lab's long range plans will be held on May 6.

- Q: How will the LRP advise on how/when to make a choice between
vision I and vision II. A: The bottom two-thirds of the plan can
proceed independent of the choice because it is identical
identical in either scenario. Even much of the top third (R&D for
a cold linac could be used either for Linear Collider or Proton
Driver) can proceed for a few years before one would have to make
choices that would distinguish between vision I and vision II. The
Proton Driver is a major upgrade to the lab programme (like the
main injector). It will require a significant commitment from the
DOE Q: Everything that needs to be done is being done from a
physics point of view, but will building support for a Proton
Driver/neutrino programme be seen as detrimental to the linear
collider consensus? A: The main next step should be to develop the
physics case for the neutrino physics programme. The Proton Driver
can then follow the physics case. But this can't be done in
isolation at FNAL. Need to consider vision from labs elsewhere in
the country and around the world. That consensus will be built
over the next few of years.


Planning for the UEC/SLUO DC trip (Zimmerman)

- Joined by members of the SLAC Users Organisation by phone
conference. Continued planning for the visit to Washington including
the 'take home' message we want to leave and the one-page document that
we will be leaving in the offices we visit. Final appointments are
still being made and pairings between FNAL UEC and SLUO members will
be made before we arrive in Washington,


Status of the Director Search (White-- reported by email after the meeting)

- As agreed at the previous meeting, the next Committee meeting
will be held at Fermilab on April 15-16 for interviews with
members of the Fermilab community. With input from several of the
Fermilab members of the Committee, a preliminary list of Fermilab
people to be invited for the interviews has been assembled. In
order to accommodate as many key interviewees as possible, the
meeting will convene at 8:00AM on April 15. The meeting will
adjourn by 3:00 PM on April 16 to allow Committee members to
depart on late afternoon-early evening flights.

- The Fermilab Director Search webpage at
http://www.fnal.gov/directorsearch
was initiated last Tuesday and several comments and nominations
have already been received. The Search website has a permanent
link from the Fermilab home page. Classified advertisements
(which also refer to the Search website) will appear in the next
month in CERN Courier, Physics Today and Science - in both print
and on their job opportunities websites. As agreed, I will now
send announcements to the physics professional groups.



Next meeting April 17, 2004