CEAC Dec. 3, 2024

From epsciwiki
Revision as of 22:16, 3 December 2024 by Davidl (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Connection Info:

You can connect using ZOOM Video conferencing (ID: 161 644 9784). (Click "Expand" to the right for details -->):

One tap mobile: US: +16692545252,,1616449784# or +16468287666,,1616449784#

Meeting URL: https://jlab-org.zoomgov.com/j/1616449784?pwd=wOXJTTqbQR9nO4FzvzII0BOxN2M2qJ.1&from=addon
Meeting ID: 161 644 9784
Passcode: 124946

Join by Telephone
For higher quality, dial a number based on your current location.
Dial: +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)
+1 646 828 7666 US (New York)
+1 646 964 1167 US (US Spanish Line)
+1 551 285 1373 US (New Jersey)
+1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose)
+1 415 449 4000 US (US Spanish Line)
833 568 8864 US Toll-free
Meeting ID: 161 644 9784
International numbers
Join from an H.323/SIP room system
H.323: 161.199.138.10 (US West)
161.199.136.10 (US East)
Meeting ID: 161 644 9784
Passcode: 124946

SIP: 1616449784@sip.zoomgov.com
Passcode: 124946

Agenda:

  1. Previous Meeting
  2. Project status and schedule slides (David)
  3. AOT

Minutes

Attendees: David L., Sergey F., Harut A., Simon T., Justin S., Sean D., Thomas B., Riad S.

  • The Letter of Intent was encouraged, but the other 2 from Jefferson Lab were not and neither was the one from CNU
    • David noted that this is the first time LoI's were used for this program and the encourage/discourage cut was more aggressive than anticipated.
    • Team members were encouraged to re-read the LoI to ensure we do not stray too far from it.
  • We will meet again in 1 week on Dec. 10 and will then have only one week before a full draft of the proposal is due to JLab on Dec. 17
    • Justin asked if the JLab DOE site office review would focus primarily on the Budget Narrative or if the Proposal Narrative would also be reviewed closely
      • David will ask and find out
  • We briefly went over a draft of deliverables for the project
    • Each experiment should use those as a guide for generating their own deliverables that can then be tied back to the common goals
  • We reviewed the current budget
    • The symmetry of personnel between the 3 experiments was broken by having only 0.5 postdocs for Hall-B while funds were included for full postdocs for W&M(GlueX) and for UVA(MOLLER).
    • There is a placeholder for a grad student for CLAS12, but no institution is attached for that at the moment.
      • The cost of the grad student is very close to 0.5 postdoc so one option is to forego the grad student and just fund the full postdoc
      • Another option is to reach out to a partner university with ties to CLAS12 (CNU?)
    • Harut will talk with Gagik offline to decide what the best option is
    • A decision will need to be made soon (end of this week) so the Budget Analysts at the participating institutions can get a full and accurate budget estimate together before the deadline.
    • David noted that in previous cycles, we were awarded less money than was requested so some descoping was required.
      • We should anticipate this, but should hold off on any specific contingency plans until we know the numbers.
  • There was some discussion on how we will handle it if only one of CLAS12 or GlueX can run with beam before the end of the 2 year project
    • Neither hall could run with the current schedule, but there is uncertainty in both Halls.
    • Sergey noted that much of the work can be done with existing data files if needed and so the project will be useful even if the final beam test cannot be done before the end of the 2 years.
    • David suggested that both CLAS12 and GlueX are expected to work on their respective experiments for the first year. However, if the schedule changes to allow only one hall to operate a beam test at the end of the 2 years, then the project resources will be shifted to focus on that one hall to give it the best chance of success.
    • MOLLER and Hall-A were not discussed here since the current beam schedule is well-suited for this project and is considered more stable.
  • We discussed the requirements for Senior and Key personnel
    • All Senior personnel should enter their collaborators in the spreadsheet David sent a link around for
    • CV's will be needed for all Co-Investigators(key personnel?) In the past this was done via the NIH BioSketch tool. David will check on what the requirement is for this
  • The next steps were briefly discussed as shown in David's slides.
    1. Re-read the LoI
    2. Complete draft of proposal narrative (4-6 pages per experiment by next meeting)
    3. Enter collaborators for Conflict of Interest spreadsheet
    4. Complete Appendices in proposal

Action Items

  1. Ask for details on JLab's internal review focus (David)
  2. Discuss CLAS12 student/postdoc with Gagik (Harut)
  3. Enter draft of plan for each experiment in overleaf (Riad, Gagik, Justin)
  4. Enter CoI in collaborators spreadsheet (All)