NPPS Leadership Team

[Alexander Kiselev <kisselev AT mail.desy.de>]

  Hi Gene,

  thanx for the summary, very informative! What were the reasons EIC was 
excluded from the discussion?

  Cheers,
    Alexander.


On Tue, 25 Jun 2019, Van Buren, Gene via Phys-npps-mgmt-l wrote:

> Hi, Torre
>
> Here was my perspective, which probably differs from those outside NPPS who 
> were more connected to some of the topics discussed.
>
> The elephant was kicked out of the room, in the sense that anything to do 
> with EIC was excluded from the discussion. With that put aside, the bulk of 
> the 2 hour discussion was focused on how the Lab could position itself for 
> future projects in future colliders, the energy frontier and the intensity 
> frontier, and cosmology (even radio astronomy).
>
> sPHENIX was mostly brushed aside as an ongoing project.
> STAR was even more briskly brushed aside as not needing Lab investments.
> ATLAS hardly had a breath of mention.
>
> For NPPS specifically, Hong expressed early on the same points you wanted made, Torre. 
> Benedikt also helpfully engaged our group as being connected on the topics of a DUNE 
> computing model, Belle-II databases, and possibilities of being a super-facility for 
> virtual hosting, with the latter having some to-be-defined resource investment 
> requirements should it be pursued. The topic of data storage+management came up (with 
> the keyword "data ocean" bantered a little) for which Benedikt also pulled us 
> in there for Rucio development, and that taking a more visible role for this on the 
> global stage would likely mean establishing a team of at least a few people, i.e. 
> requiring workforce investment.
>
> Another topic brought forward with some possibilities for future 
> considerations was Quantum Information Systems, but the discussion was pretty 
> far from concrete as far as I could tell (though everyone found interest in a 
> brief discussion about a joint C-AD + Stony Brook proposal to look into a 
> table-top storage-ring-base qubit storage system).
>
> All-in-all the discussions were more about considerations for future 
> priorities to remain relevant rather than details of LDRDs and PD fund 
> spending.
>
> Again, others probably had different perceptions and may have caught details 
> I missed. Hope that helps,
> -Gene
>
>
> > On Jun 25, 2019, at 2:07 PM, Torre Wenaus via Phys-npps-mgmt-l 
> > <phys-npps-mgmt-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> > Gene represented NPPS at the NPP investment meeting on Monday. Any 
> > impressions from it Gene?
> >
> > Apparently one outcome was a request to groups to fill out an investment 
> > sheet by this Friday. I attach a first pass at ours, based on a provided 
> > template, covering our two planned DP requests. Comments appreciated. The 
> > flat $300k profile on each is pure invention.
> >
> >   Torre
> >
> > <NPPS PD investments.xlsx>_______________________________________________
> > Phys-npps-mgmt-l mailing list
> > Phys-npps-mgmt-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/phys-npps-mgmt-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phys-npps-mgmt-l mailing list
> Phys-npps-mgmt-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/phys-npps-mgmt-l