Epic-cc-membership-committee-l mailing list

[Adam Gibson-Even <Adam.Gibson-Even AT valpo.edu>]

Hi Peter, Pietro, members of the Membership Committee-

See below my signature for some detailed comments, sent March 11, to Pietro and Peter about the membership policy as presented at the March 1 Collaboration Council meeting.

I've read through the official draft (sent for comment about a week after my email), v0.9, and discussed it with my colleagues at Valpo.

My chief concern, echoed by my colleagues, remains:

-)Have you considered different types of institutions represented on ePIC, including undergraduate universities (PUI, maybe also ERI)?

-)Is a one-size-fits all requirement like "0.2 FTE * number of members" (line 69) the best system to use, considering the diversity of types of institutions?

For an institution where many/most members are full-time researchers a 0.2 FTE requirement may seem quite modest.

For an institution where most members may be faculty with significant teaching loads 0.2 FTE may be significantly more intimidating. 

I'm particularly concerned since the number (0.2) seems likely to grow in the future.

See below my signature (my March 11 email) for more detail, and even some brainstorming of suggestions for alternate phrasing.

I didn't specifically request a reply in my earlier email. I didn't receive one, nor did the draft language on the matter change. So, I'd appreciate a reply. And/or I'm happy to schedule a conversation.

And a couple of smaller comments.

Based on my experience on other large collaborations (STAR, ATLAS, CDF) the policy seems... to require a lot of paperwork and human time. I've seen such proactive requirements for institutions joining collaborations, or as part of new members becoming authors, or for shift requirements and other service work requirements. I don't recall such explicit documentation requirements for routine membership, on other collaborations where I've been a member. Perhaps your committee, and each institution, will manage to hold the requirements lightly. Perhaps the process can be carried out quickly each year. But, I'll admit, creating such extensive bureaucracy is a bit concerning. I can imagine there might be times such a review would be desirable (e.g. if there were concerns about a particular institution's activity): I wonder if the documentation could be triggered specifically in such cases, rather than required across the board from everyone (and then requiring review by your committee). Such a trigger might be awkward, but it's not clear to me that "more extensive bureaucracy for everyone, every year" is a better alternative. I don't insist that I'm correct on this point, but I'm sharing a reaction.

My last comment is probably quite minor. Line 165 indicates that a final year of "good standing" for departing institutions allows the institution and members to remain on "scientific and technical papers released during this period". I suppose our publication and/or authorship policies are likely to eventually spell out more clearly exactly what this means. At what point is an author list frozen, and at what point should an author be a member in good standing to be listed on a particular paper. I'm not sure if your choice of word, "released", is meant in some technical sense. If so, perhaps it should be spelled out more specifically. Or, perhaps this is better done in other documents. Then, I wonder if something a little fuzzier might be safer. "This allows the institution and its members to remain on additional scientific and technical papers." or "This should facilitate the institution and its members being listed as authors of final scientific and technical papers." (Perhaps adding, "in coordination with other Collaboration policies.") Or some such.

Good luck as you finalize the draft.

I look forward to your reply on the question of undergraduate universities and the blanket 0.2 FTE requirement.

Best wishes,

Adam

Adam Gibson-Even (he/him)

Associate Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy

Valparaiso University

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Adam Gibson-Even <Adam.Gibson-Even AT valpo.edu>
Date: Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 1:13 PM
Subject: anecdotal thoughts on Membership slides, undergraduate universities, from March 1
To: <pietro.antonioli AT bo.infn.it>, Peter Alan Steinberg <peter.steinberg AT bnl.gov>

Hi Peter, Pietro (feel free to forward this to the whole membership committee if you prefer)-

Thanks for the Membership Committee report back on March 1 at the Collaboration Council meeting.

Unfortunately, I had left for class by the time your talk came up, but I appreciated your slides. It looks like you're taking a thoughtful approach to a membership policy.

I'm confident you're aware that there are a variety of types of institutions on ePIC including a variety of folks who do work on ePIC in a variety of career roles. 

But, I figured that an anecdotal response from a professor at an undergraduate university in the US might be useful already as you formulate your (first?) "final" draft. I guess there are at least a few universities that match that description that are members of ePIC. (Taking a quick survey... there are more than I realized. Maybe eight, or perhaps more, undergraduate universities? At least one more with a masters program but no PhD? More than I've noticed on other large collaborations. But, of course, still a small percentage of the overall number of institutions.)

My university (Valparaiso, in northwest Indiana about an hour from Chicago) has regular faculty (with significant teaching responsibilities), staff (with research commitments, and other commitments), semi-retired faculty that are still active in research (on a part-time basis), and undergraduate students. We sometimes have a postdoc, but not lately (depends on funding). No graduate students.

Have you, the committee, already had some conversation about undergraduate universities?

I'll admit I'm a bit nervous by the idea in the slides of an institutional commitment of 0.2 FTE x number of members. I may be able to meet it, but it makes me want to think carefully about who I officially list on the member list.

For full-time researchers, a 20% requirement per person might seem relatively modest, even for someone active on multiple experiments.

At an undergraduate university, the calculus may be a bit different. Using myself as an example, I have significant teaching responsibilities (even if they're lighter than at some undergraduate universities). Depending on how you crunch the numbers, my paid research time, annually, could come out to around 0.3 FTE (certainly not more than 0.6 FTE). My Department of Energy grant calls for work on two experiments (ePIC and STAR): this won't be surprising since ePIC is years from construction, and further from taking data.

So, "0.2 FTE x number of members" already feels like a significant barrier to me. And the implication is that this may rise over time. (OK, eventually our commitments at STAR will decline but...).

I don't have an immediate "favorite solution" for how to accommodate different types of institutions, like my own.

A smaller number (less than 0.2) would, of course, be easier for my institution to meet. 

Or, perhaps it would be reasonable to make the required commitment a fraction of available research time, instead of a fraction of the calendar year. (Or some hybrid, "0.2 FTE x number of members or a minimum of 25% of the research time of members" or whatever percentage seems appropriate.)

 

A more informal process could perhaps allow for some discretion. (Maybe institutions like mine are rare enough to be treated as exceptions, rather than altering the main rules.) A general guideline, but an idea that the actual rule is that contributions should be reasonably consistent with the institutional plan (that's signed off by the membership committee, or perhaps management could get involved, etc.)

I'm not inclined to make this overly formal, or time consuming, in terms of annual reporting and review. But, at the same time, I'm eager to not prohibit certain types of institutions (especially not accidentally!) by formulas that might be written in an apparently rigid way and turn out to be too simple.

Different collaborations have handled this in different ways, of course. And probably you've taken some survey. In my time at STAR, all during the data-taking phase, the requirement as I've experienced it has been based on taking shifts, is accounted against the institution, and is based on the number of authors. It's the same requirement for all types of institutions. It means that I spend a larger fraction of my research time taking shifts than does maybe a typical postdoc from a research institute. But, the accountable requirement's never been as large as 20% of an FTE. (So perhaps this is an example of "same requirement for every author, but a de facto requirement smaller than 20% of an FTE". And that <20% even in the data taking phase of an experiment.)

When I first joined the faculty at Valparaiso, I had some conversations with US ATLAS (US CMS? both? it was a dozen years ago and memory fades) about joining from an undergraduate institution. At the time they were explicitly considering a policy with undergrad institutions in mind. But, I went in another direction and I'm not sure where the dust settled with those policies.

Best wishes,

Adam

  

Adam Gibson-Even (he/him)

Associate Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy

Valparaiso University