usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov

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

List archive

Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [Usatlas-hllhc-management-l] [External] FW: questions

From: Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>
To: "Zhang, Jinlong" <zhangjl AT anl.gov>, Elliot Lipeles <lipeles AT hep.upenn.edu>
Cc: Mark Kruse <mkruse AT phy.duke.edu>, Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>, "usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, "usatlas-hllhc-management-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <usatlas-hllhc-management-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [Usatlas-hllhc-management-l] [External] FW: questions
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:28:34 +0200

> 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.

The problem with that is that you're just repeating the fact that led to the question.

Best,

Gustaaf

Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [Usatlas-hllhc-management-l] [External] FW: questions , (continued)