U.S. ATLAS HL-LHC Upgrade Level 2 and Deputies-NSF only Management Mailing List

["Zhang, Jinlong" <zhangjl AT anl.gov>]

On Aug 29, 2019, at 8:01 AM, Elliot Lipeles <lipeles AT hep.upenn.edu> wrote:

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 8:42 AM Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu> wrote:

Hi,

>     For Paul's 3rd question you write "Answer: The HTT plan relies
>     significantly more scientific labor largely to include students and
>     postdocs in the project for training purposes. Approximately 2/3rds of
>     the HTT firmware effort is scientific labor. The GEP plan is not to use
>     students and postdocs to write firmware and for them to only be engaged
>     in testing and simulation."
>     ==> This only re-states Paul's observation.  It doesn't explain why
>     it's
>     done this way.
>
> The key point is "for training purposes". That is the primary reason
> it's done this way.

The obvious follow-up is: why do we train people on HTT and not global
algorithms?

Yes, but I don't really have an answer to that. Global does involve/train students but only for simulation and testing work. It is really driven by the history of the institutes involved. Do we really need to justify that kind of decision? His question really comes from an assumption about what students vs engineers do.

 

Maybe just remove “for the training purposes”.  Without that the current version of answer will simply state two WBSs use different labor categories but have no indications about their qualification.