NPPS Leadership Team

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

  Hi Torre,

  looks fine to me. Was wondering to see the reply.

  As a general comment, I can not react on such e-mail exchange in real time.
My "interrupt handler" does not allow for efficient context switch if 
there are too many distractions :-) Would be better if such an e-mail was 
discussed on a few days notice.

  Regards,
    Alexander.



On Thu, 28 May 2020, Torre Wenaus via Phys-npps-mgmt-l wrote:

> Thanks, sent, without the apology :-)
>   Torre
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:15 PM Laycock, Paul <laycock AT bnl.gov> wrote:
>       Thanks ! I think you could argue that, in addition to providing an 
> appropriate financial matching to the validation effort coming from JLab, 
> there is also a very strong
>       strategic argument that there should be validation effort coming from 
> both labs.  The comparisons you discuss will be crucial input for taking 
> decisions.  Imagine what
>       would happen if the validation says "JLab" and the only validation 
> effort is from JLab.  BNL has to play its part in ensuring an objective outcome based 
> on what's best for
>       the science.
>
> I think you can also drop the "convoluted" apology at the end, it's his job 
> to understand complex problems :)
>
> Paul
>
>       On 28 May 2020, at 12:43, Torre Wenaus <wenaus AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Comments much appreciated! This is a new version, following the wise advice 
> to drop the travel part, and adding a paragraph about how additionally the 
> validation suite can
> be used. With a few tweaks to perhaps make it clearer what I'm proposing.
>
> Hi Jamie,
> I have a proposal to make an addition to the EIC software effort (over and 
> above Kolja, including his promotion), while at the same time activating the 
> PHENIX DAP support.
>
> I haven't forgotten that you have allocated 1/2 FTE for PHENIX data & 
> analysis preservation :-) I haven't found a way to use it on an existing person. 
> I have been looking
> for an opportunity to add a complementary 1/2 FTE to turn it into a full 
> person we can hire, and I think there's a good case now for the other 1/2 FTE 
> to be EIC software
> support. This new 1/2 FTE would be complemented by another 1/2 FTE of new EIC 
> software support being requested to JLab by Markus (which would be applied to 
> JLab based
> effort).
>
> Here's why we need an additional FTE of EIC software support.
>
> In EIC software, the YR developments and the most recent workshop last week 
> have clarified our needs. The suite of simu tools we support in the software 
> working group are
> accepted and in use across the YR working groups. It is clear that for the 
> indefinite future we will have two full simu + reco frameworks, fun4all and 
> escalate (g4e +
> jana2). Actually we have three because EicRoot is still getting a lot of use. 
> On the fast simu side we support one, eic-smear, though some in the community 
> are using
> delphes. What is clear now, and what we're getting requests for, is we need 
> cross-validation between these tools. Between full and full, fast and full, 
> and fast and fast if
> delphes catches on. Kolja is ready to help here, in the context of eic-smear; 
> he can help both with the general infrastructure and applying it to 
> eic-smear. But he can't do
> it all, and the software working group conveners are asking for help in the 
> form of an FTE of new postdoc-level effort. This effort would be used to help 
> develop the
> infrastructure (common format for kinematic outputs from simu and reco, 
> standard set of validation ntuples and plots, validation workflows, etc.) and 
> to perform the
> validation of our supported software packages and cross-validation between 
> them.
>
> This validation suite and infrastructure will have important value beyond 
> validating the software itself. By enabling the comparison of full and fast 
> simu based on physics
> performance metrics, it will provide quantitative means of assessing the 
> relative utility and roles of fast and full simu, enabling us to optimize 
> their use with their very
> different processung costs and latencies. It will also provide a means of 
> objectively comparing detector models and monitoring the changes in their 
> performance as models
> evolve.
>
> Hence I am asking you for 1/2 FTE postdoc level support, which I could 
> combine with the DAP support to hire someone. DAP and the validation work fit 
> very well; validation
> is part of DAP. And Markus is asking JLab management for 1/2 FTE support.  
> The two labs collaborating to support an FTE worth of effort (across two 
> people) on a task that
> is manifestly important and generic -- and which is all the more important 
> because we have not converged on one framework, though the work would be 
> needed even if we had --
> would be a very good message of support for the immediate software needs of 
> EIC.
>
> Interested to hear what you think. This is a bit convoluted, I'm happy to 
> clarify as needed!
>
>   Torre
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:33 PM Laycock, Paul <laycock AT bnl.gov> wrote:
>       Hi Torre, I would completely drop the travel support request, it's not 
> the right time and risks weakening your argument by mixing a high priority 
> request with
>       something not currently relevant.  When travel restarts we will be 
> scrutinised more than before and there will be an assumption that we will 
> travel less than
>       before corona.  That may even require some prioritisation exercise, 
> asking for new travel budgets in this context is bad timing.
>
> For the software position, and thinking about the bottom line (you're 
> discussing money) as described there is no guiding strategy.  It should be 
> clear that by
> investing effort now in validation of these tools, we can more accurately 
> assess future simulation needs.  By distinguishing between the use of full 
> and fast sim
> based on physics performance needs, we will be able to optimise their use and 
> the associated costs.
>
> Paul
>
>
>       On 27 May 2020, at 11:59, Torre Wenaus via Phys-npps-mgmt-l 
> <Phys-npps-mgmt-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I plan to make the following proposal to Jamie following discussion among the 
> EIC SW WG conveners. If you think it is misguided, or you have any comments at
> all, please let me know!
>   Torre
>
> Hi Jamie,
> A couple questions about EIC software support. The deadline for new EIC detector 
> R&D proposals is coming next month. Up to now we've relied on a small
> allocation to software consortium R&D to support travel. That account (which 
> I manage now) is down to $7k or so. How can we replenish our travel funds? A new
> software R&D proposal is probably not the sensible way to do it. Can we get 
> $20k or so (when we start to travel again) from your detector budget?
>
> The other question is about effort. I haven't forgotten that you have allocated 
> 1/2 FTE for PHENIX data & analysis preservation :-) I haven't found a way to 
> use
> it on an existing person. I have been looking for an opportunity to add a 
> complementary 1/2 FTE to turn it into a full person we can hire, and I think 
> there's a
> good case now for the other 1/2 FTE to be EIC software support, with another 
> 1/2 FTE of new EIC software support being requested to JLab by Markus (which 
> would
> presumably be applied to JLab based effort). Here's why we need an additional 
> FTE of EIC software support.
>
> In EIC software, the YR developments and the most recent workshop last week 
> have clarified our needs. The suite of simu tools we support in the software 
> working
> group are accepted and in use across the YR working groups. It is clear that 
> for the indefinite future we will have two full simu + reco frameworks, 
> fun4all and
> escalate (g4e + jana2). Actually we have three because EicRoot is still 
> getting a lot of use. On the fast simu side we support one, eic-smear, though 
> some in
> the community are using delphes. What is clear now, and what we're getting 
> requests for, is we need cross-validation between these tools. Between full 
> and full,
> fast and full, and fast and fast if delphes catches on. We are going to ask 
> Kolja to help here, in the context of eic-smear; he can help both with the 
> general
> infrastructure and applying it to eic-smear. But he can't do it all, and the 
> software working group conveners are asking for help in the form of an FTE of 
> new
> postdoc-level effort. This effort would be used to help develop the 
> infrastructure (common format for kinematic outputs from simu and reco, 
> standard set of
> validation ntuples and plots, validation workflows, etc.) and to perform the 
> validation of our supported software packages and cross-validation between 
> them.
>
> I am asking you for 1/2 FTE postdoc level support, which I could combine with 
> the DAP support to hire someone. DAP and the validation work fit very well;
> validation is part of DAP. And Markus is asking JLab management for 1/2 FTE 
> support.  The two labs collaborating to support an FTE worth of effort 
> (across two
> people) on a task that is manifestly important and generic -- and which is 
> all the more important because we have not converged on one framework, though 
> the
> work would be needed even if we had -- would be a very good message of 
> support for the immediate software needs of EIC.
>
> Interested to hear what you think on these points.
>
>   Torre
>
> --
> -- Torre Wenaus, BNL NPPS Group, ATLAS Experiment
> -- BNL 510A 1-222 | 631-681-7892 |  wenaus AT gmail.com | npps.bnl.gov | 
> wenaus.org
> -- NPPS Mattermost room: https://chat.sdcc.bnl.gov/npps/channels/town-square
> _______________________________________________
> Phys-npps-mgmt-l mailing list
> Phys-npps-mgmt-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/phys-npps-mgmt-l
>
>
>
>
> --
> -- Torre Wenaus, BNL NPPS Group, ATLAS Experiment
> -- BNL 510A 1-222 | 631-681-7892 |  wenaus AT gmail.com | npps.bnl.gov | 
> wenaus.org
> -- NPPS Mattermost room: https://chat.sdcc.bnl.gov/npps/channels/town-square
>
>
>
>
> --
> -- Torre Wenaus, BNL NPPS Group, ATLAS Experiment
> -- BNL 510A 1-222 | 631-681-7892 |  wenaus AT gmail.com | npps.bnl.gov | 
> wenaus.org
> -- NPPS Mattermost room: https://chat.sdcc.bnl.gov/npps/channels/town-square