General EEEMCal Meeting Summary 3/24/23

From Cuawiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Participants: Julie, Justin, Carlos, Cristiano, Hamlet, Hrachya, Ioana, Josh, Renee, Rosi, Tanja


  • Overleaf available now - contact Renee if need access
  • Writing assignments>:
  • Overview (Executive Summary) -> Richard, Tanja, Renee
  • Science case (Intellectual Merit) and timeline -> Renee, Richard, Tanja
  • Detector scope -> Tanja, Cristiano, Justin, Paul, Lei
  • Broader impacts and DEI -> Rosi, Ioana, Larry, Joerg
  • Full Project Execution Plan -> Julie, Tanja, Sasha/Elke/Rolf,...
  • Supplementary documents - needed from all institutions through their SPOs
  • Check all pre-proposal documents - still applicable?
  • In addition need : Current/Pending Support, Data Management plan, Postdoc mentoring plan
  • Letters: one from EIC PM and one from EPIC Collaboration, plus any additional single-line acknowledgement letters


  • Overall: read solicitation and make sure that all is clear, if not this is the chance to ask for clarification
  • Scope change from original discussion about half a year ago
  • after detailed costing of the backward EMCal found that cannot fit backward EMCal and barrel into the $20Mio budget ceiling of MsRI-1
  • adding Sciglass would increase the budget
  • Backward EMCal covers the majority of the physics
  • Text from solicitation: Letters
  • which type of letter is appropriate for the collaboration, i.e., does this qualify:
  • "If a proposed effort involves a collaboration at an organizational level as opposed to an individual(s), e.g., a private sector partner, an entire organization, or a large formalized collaboration (e.g., through a memorandum of understanding or other legal document), a one- page-maximum letter confirming their participation may be included. In particular, proposals involving large formalized collaborations are encouraged to have the collaboration utilize this letter to document the role, importance and priority of the requested infrastructure in the overall efforts being undertaken by the collaboration."
  • Review process in general - what reviewers (background in physics) to expect for full proposal
  • do we need to adjust the balance of science case and detector development?
  • Anything on PEP


  • Need to define the scope and the milestones for each subtask (PWO, SiPM, etc.) - overall needs to align with the EIC Project milestones
  • overall scope needs to define when the project is considered complete
  • define deliverables clearly for each subtask
  • Signal processing and DAQ
  • one deliverable might be finalize design
  • define additional deliverables - may also need to check what EIC Project is planning for alignment
  • Software
  • define deliverables that fit into the overall scope
  • Send input for the PEP by Wed noon to Julie