sPHENIX is a new detector at RHIC.

[Martin Purschke <purschke AT bnl.gov>]

All, especially Mickey and the Colorado group,

the DAQ/Trigger/MBD review was originally scheduled for Dec 13. It turns
out that the DOE moved a review that I had agreed to serve on to that
week, and I have to be in Germantown the better part of that week. Being
wedged in between the Santa Fe meeting and this, JohnH suggested we move
the TR out by a week (that would nominally be Dec 20).

If that's getting too close to the Holiday Season, we could find a day
earlier that week. I just wanted to let you know so no one feels left out.

        Martin


On 10/26/17 10:04, John Haggerty wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have been in touch with the subsystem managers about this, but I
> thought I should let the wider sPHENIX world know that this will be
> starting soon.  The goal is to have a document the design in a series of
> presentations, and to remind ourselves what must be completed in the
> Conceptual Design Report.  It is a direct response to a recommendation
> of the Director's Review.
> 
> I'll be asking for help in conducting these reviews from within the
> collaboration, so please consider seriously requests from Jim, Don, or
> me.  If you are interested in volunteering, please contact me.
> 
>> The charge to the CD-1 review of sPHENIX will almost certainly include
>> the question to the review committee:
>>
>>> Is the conceptual design technically sound and likely to meet the
>>> objectives of its scientific case?
>>
>> and the expectation will be that the CDR will be complete.
>>
>> Ed and I think that we can accomplish this in a way that actually
>> benefits us by convening a series of short reviews for each of the
>> detector systems.  The idea is that we have one morning each on TPC,
>> EMCAL, HCAL, CalEl, and T/DAQ with a largely technical committee of
>> physicists and engineers, including one "outside" person (i.e., not a
>> member of the sPHENIX collaboration).  I will chair the committee, and
>> I will work with the L2 managers to select other members of the
>> committee (nor more than 2 or 3 other physicists or engineers, in
>> addition to the "outside" reviewer).
>>
>> I would like to use this process to complete the CDR so that it is
>> ready for a Director's Review in early CY2018 and a CD-1 review in
>> spring of 2018, so part of the job of the reviewers is to read
>> carefully and make *constructive* suggestions and corrections to the
>> CDR.  We might want to appoint one of the reviewers as a subsystem
>> "godfather" who will help edit the CDR.
>>
>> I propose the following schedule on Wednesday mornings (there are
>> relatively few meetings on Wednesday):
>>
>> Nov 1 HCAL
>> Nov 8 EMCAL
>> Nov 15 TPC and TPC electronics (we might need to go into the afternoon
>> on electronics)
>> Nov 29 CalEl
>> Dec 13 Trigger/DAQ + MBD
>>
>> The outcome of this process would then be a series of meetings with
>> technical slides, a review report, and a completed CDR by the
>> beginning of CY2018.  It seems feasible to me; many of you have almost
>> all the slides you need for this now, the CDR is in a pretty advanced
>> state, and we can use it also as a way to draw in more members of the
>> collaboration.
>>
>> I actually don't think these reviews should be onerous... much of the
>> material has been shown multiple times, and having someone outside our
>> usual orbit look at our ideas might even prove useful.  I'll post this
>> to one of the sphenix lists, but I thought first I'd make sure the L2
>> managers are ok with it, and this will test whether you read to the end. 
> 
> 


-- 
Martin L. Purschke, Ph.D.        ;   purschke AT bnl.gov
                                 ;   http://www.phenix.bnl.gov/~purschke
                                 ;
Brookhaven National Laboratory   ;   phone: +1-631-344-5244
Physics Department Bldg 510 C    ;   fax:   +1-631-344-3253
Upton, NY 11973-5000             ;   skype: mpurschke
-----------------------------------------------------------------------