NPPS Leadership Team

[Torre Wenaus <wenaus AT gmail.com>]

Hi Brett,

I agree. We argued the case all the way to Bob Lincoln who flatly refused to approve a dual location posting. No real justification. 

We agreed to fight this out with the new management since Lincoln is a lame duck.

For this particular position we have (David Jaffe tells me) a very good candidate who would be BNL based, but unnecessarily shrinking the pool is always bad. Including for DEI — another indication DEI is just words.

The DUNE position we really expect to be based at CERN because we have a clear candidate at CERN.

  Torre

On Jul 10, 2023 at 9:19:02 AM, Brett Viren <bv AT bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Torre,

Torre Wenaus via Phys-npps-mgmt-l <phys-npps-mgmt-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
writes:

There was a lot of back and forth with HR about making CERN location a possibility. At the moment we have

to choose between BNL and CERN location.

Hence this one is BNL, the DUNE one will be CERN, based both on

fit and on the known candidates.

It makes sense to me for new BelleII person to be BNL-based.

I can think of a few reasons both for or against either choice of CERN
or BNL for the DUNE position.  I think either will be good depending on
the candidate.

Forcing us to choose a specific one a'priori will obviously reduce the
pool of qualified candidates.  Doing that is not in the best interest of
the lab.  It is very difficult to find qualified candidates for this
type of position so this limitation is particularly detrimental.

Did HR give a justification for imposing this harmful limitation?

O.w., the text looks good to me.

-Brett.

--

-- Torre Wenaus, BNL NPPS Group, ATLAS Experiment

-- BNL 510A 1-222 | 631-681-7892