NPPS Leadership Team

["Van Buren, Gene" <gene AT bnl.gov>]

You're welcome.

Sorry I didn't make that clear...Berndt expressed that the EIC is 
well-understood to be a high priority for investing across the board, so the 
2 hours would be better spent discussing "What else?" We also did not spend 
time debating how well understood...

-Gene


> On Jun 26, 2019, at 1:48 PM, Alexander Kiselev <kisselev AT mail.desy.de> 
> wrote:
> 
>  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
>>