Epic-cc-membership-committee-l mailing list

[Rachel Montgomery <Rachel.Montgomery AT glasgow.ac.uk>]

Hello,

Thank you for preparing this membership policy. We appreciate the effort which goes into putting this together. 

I’m writing on behalf of the University of Glasgow group, as it’s CC member.

I’ve polled/discussed within the group. Overall the group is happy with the document and think it looks very good. The comments/queries I’ve collected so far are below.

• The main comment is concerns that 0.2FTE per person average is too high.
• We appreciate that this number makes sense at the moment when there is the TDR to write.
• It would be good if research group leaders can be named as members to keep involved in their group’s activities, would this add to the 0.2FTE number?
• 0.2FTE could become a difficult number to maintain after the TDR eg for academic heavy groups.
• Would maintaining 0.2FTE become difficult during the years after the TDR when the work is mostly detector development focussed? Or is 0.2 for any EIC related activity?
• Crrespondingly, could the Activity Areas be further defined (eg if someone does simulations on a physics channel they just happen to be interested in does that count as approved physics towards the FTE?).

Thank you again and all the best,

Rachel