2007

There are 2 polls in this election, one for the PWGC member, and one for the at-large member.

Second turn (run-off) election

Please vote for each of the 2 polls below:

• Run-off Advisory board election: Which of the two candidate would you like to select for the at-large position?
• Run-off Advisory board election: Which of the two candidate would you like to select for the PWG position?

First turn election

The results are now available for the two polls below.

• Which person do you vote for as the at-large representative on the STAR Advisory Board?
• Which person do you vote for as the PWGC representative on the STAR Advisory Board?

 

20020506

First meeting, May 6, 2002

Perserverance Hall, LBNL

Recorded by T. Hallman

The opening discussion focused on the nature of the Advisory Board, and the fact that it is advisory to the Spokesperson. The suggestion was made and accepted that sessions would be open to the collaboration membership, with the understanding that if sensitive issues arose, the Board could at any time move to go into executive (closed) session. Discussions known a priori to be in this category would be noted as such on the agenda. It was further discussed that for this initial meeting the agenda had been put together jointly by the Spokesperson and the Council Chair. That would also be the case for future meetings, but the Advisory Board members would also be solicited for agenda items before each meeting.

A report was given by Bill Christie concerning ongoing repairs to the SVT hardware by David Lynn, Bill Leonhardt, et al. Helen Caines presented the status of the software and analysis effort for the SVT. The conclusions were that the ongoing hardware repairs appeared to be in hand in terms of readying the SVT for operation in the coming run. The software effort was noted to also have made great strides, and it was stated that the manpower situation was looking somewhat brighter with the addition of Richard Witt from BERN/Yale. It was stated that more effort on software/analysis/calibration was needed, and that the Spokesperson should encourage groups whose physics interests are tied to the SVT to become involved in this software effort. It is hoped that the SVT will become a standard component of the DAQ and production chains for the coming run.

The continuing difficult situation with the productivity and environment in E-By-E was discussed. There was discussion concerning the impression from the status talk at the Analysis Meeting that the paper in preparation on non-statistical fluctuations in mean pt would not follow the recommendations of the committee chaired by Mike Lisa. It was commented that although the talk went beyond the discussion of the status of the paper, and one could get this impression, the writing team was in fact working to address various concerns about possible systematics, which was one of the main recommendations of the report. It was commented that when the text is ready, it will be returned to the Lisa Committee prior to going into GPC to verify that it reflects the conclusions of the committee's report. It was noted that the Lisa report is taken to represent the consensus view of the Collaboration and will be used as the blueprint to get this paper out. With regard to the future, the question of how to improve the general environment in E-By-E was discussed. No firm conclusion was reached, although it was discussed that because the difficulty appeared to be irreconcilable, and revolved around the dynamic between several individuals, some separatation of the principals might be necessary. This was noted not to be a complete solution, but one which would perhaps provide a better environment locally within the physics working groups, allowing young people in particular to work productively in a colleagial atmosphere.

A brief status report was given on a planned MRPC TOF proposal by Geary Eppley. The plan is to submit a proposal in May for consideration at the next Collaboration meeting, in anticipation of consideration by the BNL PAC next August.

A brief status report on the ongoing shutdown activities was given by Bill Christie. It was stated that at present, there was no need for the Advisory Board to give guidance on prioritization of the ongoing or planned activities, although it could happen later in the year that this would become necessary.

20020713

July 13, 2002

Subatech, Nantes, France

Recorded by J. Nelson and T. Hallman

Present:

P. Jacobs, S. Vigdor, J. Dunlop, J. Thomas, W. Christie, G. Eppley, T. Hallman(Chair), M. Kaplan, J. Marx, H-G. Ritter

1. FPD Proposal

   Discussion began with focus on the proposal for a new forward pi zero detector. This detector is thought to be essential for polarized proton running in order to tune the spin rotators for STAR, to make measurements of left-right asymmetries for forward pi zeros produced by transversely polarized protons, and to take a first look at the gluon distribution in dAu collisions.

   A minimal initial configuration would include four detectors (two East and West), whereas to realize the complete reach of the proposal, 4 detectors on each side would be required.

   The initial findings of the review panel chaired by J. Symons were discussed. The panel judged the physics merit to be high, and the need for this detector for polarimetry to be essential. They also expressed concern however about the possibility the inclusive pi zero asymmetry might be zero (although first results seemed to indicate this was not the case), and that the debris in the Au direction in dAu collisions might prevent some of the proposed physics from being accomplished.

   It was noted that for a minimal configuration to be available in the coming run funds for PMTs would be needed soon.

   S.Vigdor indicated he would investigate whether it might be possible to loan PMTs (but bases are not available) from IUCF, provided a future purchase could replace them soon.

   It was also noted that funds would be needed immediately for some mechanical construction.

   Several simulations had yet to be done (e.g. the background in the gold direction in dAu collisions) and should be done as soon as possible.

   Advice to spokesman: the group should be encouraged to try to make progress towards the implementation of at least a minimal configuration for the next run. In particular they should start mechanical work, and accomplish simulations to finalize detector requirements. Full approval should wait until next meeting when it was expected that further analysis of the data in hand as well as simulations would be available.

    

2. MRPC ToF

   The status of the TOF proposal and first comments from the review panel were discussed. The panel felt that the physics case could be strengthened, as well as some practical aspects of the proposed construction project. Further simulations and figures concerning expected gains in scientific reach for STAR were noted to be needed.

   It was commented that this proposal is not tied directly to a possible proposed micro vertex detector. It was also noted that the strongest arguments presently made concerned e-by-e and charm physics topics.

   T. Hallman suggested a workshop in September to get a broad participation from the Collaboration focused on improving the proposal, and doing further simulations. He indicated he would get together a group to organize the workshop. It was noted that this was needed right away.

   The Advisory Board supported this suggestion.

    

3. Beam use request

   There was a discussion concerning Tim Hallman's strawman BUR proposal presented at the collaboration meeting. Concern was expressed about the 6 weeks needed (5 setup 1 week of AuAu) to calibrate the EMC and a question was raised whether or not this work could be accomplished with dAu. The question was also raised whether RHIC might startup with AuAu anyway as a way to start up efficiently; if so, the calorimeter could be calibrated during this period. W.Christie was asked to investigate both these questions.

   The Advisory Board concurred that dAu and polarized pp should have high priority in the BUR.

    

4. ExE working group

   There was a discussion which centered on how to improve efficient physics analysis and a good physics working group environment in the area of e-by-e physics. Suggestions were made concerning a possible person to co-convene with Gary Westfall for the existing ExE group as well as the establishment of a new Event Structure working group under the convenorship of L.Ray. Tim Hallman indicated that for the existing e-by-e convenor consideration the members of the group would be solicited for their opinions according to the standard agreed upon procedure.

   The Board encouraged the spokesman to pursue these possibilities in the broader interests of the collaboration.

    

5. Priorities for final installation/commissionig

   There was a brief discussion of the fact that it may be necessary due to finite time and resources to establish priorities for final installation and commissioning of detectors in the fall in preparation for the next run. The consensus was that this may be necessary but that it was too soon to have a detailed discussion and this would be visited later depending on the need.

   There was a brief discussion of the Endcap EMC construction and the tight schedule for the part of that detector scheduled to be installed before the next run. There was a consensus that all efforts should be made to install the EEMC under the assumption that the radiator sheet repairs could be completed on the time scale presented to the collaboration.

    

6. Piorities for end of year funds

   There was brief discussion concerning which project should have priority for any end of year funds that might be available. Projects considered were the FPD, the EEMC, and R&D for the Barrel TOF electronics. In view of the urgency of getting started on the FPD construction, and statements that the EEMC and TOF electronics R&D projects did not have needs as urgent on the time scale of a few months, it was decided the FPD would have priority for any end of year funds that might be availble to try to get started on installing a minimal implementation for the next run.

 

20021025

October 25, 2002

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Recorded by J. Nelson and T. Hallman

Present:

T. Hallman (Chair) J.Dunlop, S.Vigdor, W.Christie, G.Eppley, J.Nelson, T. Ludlam, J. Lauret, P.Jacobs, R. Brown, J.Thomas Video Link:

J.Marx, H-G. Ritter, H.Wieman Phone Link:

R. Bellwied, M.Kaplan, C. Whitten

1. Minutes of the previous meeting were reviewed and it was confirmed that those items which required actions, had been concluded.
2. ITTF: R. Bellwied presented the report of the September Review Committee. However, the recommendation of the Committee was that the ITTF should be deployed as soon as possible. The ITTF was not yet ready for deployment and further work is urgently required if the tracker is to be reviewed in December for use in January. If it is not ready for January, then a slippage of 6 months is inevitable. R. Bellwied considered that the use of ITTF for AuAu in year 4 was an absolute necessity. There is both a short- and long- term problem. In the short term, there is an immediate need to retain the present team until the end of December. An additional FTE on the project as soon as possible would be a strong signal that the ITTF is getting active support.

   Advice: it was agreed that the spokesman should consult the groups from Yale, Kent State, Wayne State, and BNL with a view to encouraging the current team to continue. The Spokesperson should also approach the collaboration for extra manpower.

   In the longer term, the use of ITTF as STAR's principal tracker requires a commitment either from a national laboratory (for continuity) and/or a consortium of Universities to provide support.

   Concern was expressed about a changeover in January. It is important to run the old and new in parallel in order to establish that bias was not being introduced in the analysis.

   The report of the Review Committee was accepted.

    

3. FPD: L. Bland introduced simulations to investigate background in the Au beam direction that had been carried out following the previous Advisory Board meeting. These showed reconstruction of the pizero mass in the Au direction. There is a clear indication of signal but more work is necessary. In reply to a question, TH reported that funding for the FPD could be obtained in principle from BNL capital funds. The overall list of capital equipment needs will come to the Advisory Board for prioritization.

   The report of the FPD Review Committee was approved.

    

4. Resource priorities for FPD, PMD and EEC. R. Brown's paper showing tasks in hand and those without allocated resources, was introduced. The baseline detector was defined as Magnet, TPC, FTPC, CTB, TOFp,BEMC, BBC, SVT, DAQ and TRG. The outer layer of the BBC was dependent on certain priorities being set for production at Fermi Lab.

   PMD: T.Nayak presented a scenario in which the PMD would be mainly checked out as an engineering run. It was not anticipated that it would be used in dedicated physics run.

   EEMC: S. Vigdor: the tower readout will be ready for trigger this year. This would largely be an engineering run so that by the time of the pp run it would be ready for high pt physics. It provides a much improved acceptance. A requirement would be that the pole-tip remains out for as long as possible. This means a late mounting for the BBC.

   FPD: L. Bland: Pizero spectra would be obtained from E and W sides. In the pp run, it would be used for vertical polarization measurements and, importantly, to tune the spin rotation magnets. The present plan is to instrument the complete FPD on the east side, plus single (N or S) calorimeter on west side.

   It was agreed that the priority for resources available beyond those to ready the baseline from R. Brown would be: FPD, EEC and PMD in that order.

   Funding of the FPD would be sought from capital equipment funds which STAR may have at its discretion.

    

5. R&D proposal and Upgrades Discussion: T. Ludlam introduced a discussion on the STAR Upgrades proposal for FY2003 to FY2005. This sets a picture for STAR's future: TOF, �VTX, Daq+Trg, new TPC. Is this the way forward? If luminosity increased as planned eventually a new TPC will be required. Priorities will have to be set once it is known what level of funds will be available. There may be some projects for which the R&D can be jointly undertaken with other experiments.

   It is important to ready the physics case for the upgrade of STAR/RHIC to be ready for the 19/20 December meeting so that BNL and DOE management are properly informed about what is being planned. T. Hallman was asked to present update the Advisory Boatd on progress in this area in 2-3 weeks.

   A STAR R&D proposal based on technical considerations has already been submitted. A corresponding physics supplement is urgently required.

    

6. EMC: T. Ludlam presented a summary of the recent EMC review. The full half barrel is in place and should be ready for the run. There is, however, a problem with PM readout where half of the tubes showed a gain instability leading to double peaks. This was due to a problem with the PMT bases. The problem bases have been replaced but there is concern the remaining half might develop the same symptoms. Further investigation is needed.

   Outcome of the review: the goal is to have all modules completed in FY04. A funding advance will be needed to forward fund some work earlier in FY03 to accomplish this. The review went well in general.

    

7. General:
   1. agreed to request one some type of regularly scheduled Maintenance Shift per week; the proposal being considered by the four collaborations is 1 shift per week through December, and 1 shift every two weeks for the period of the run following December.

       

   2. release of data: based on the conclusions from the convenors' meeting, it was agreed that if STAR data appearing in published conference proceedings were requested by non-STAR physicists, the standard procedure would be to honor the request and release the data. People making such request would be asked to maintain the "STAR preliminary data" designation if the data were so designated in the proceedings.

       

   Advice: T. Hallman was requested to contact PRL concerning STAR preliminary data being published by a non-STAR physicist. Would this prejudice against future publication of this data in PRL by STAR?

    

8. MRPC TOF update: J.Marx requested information on improvements to the report as requested by the July meeting of the Advisory Board. Since the latest report has not yet been released, T. Hallman presented a brief outline. The case for full acceptance rests mainly on ExE correlations. The Board considered that a stronger case is required with a broader physics base. The views of theorists should be in incorporated into the report. The funding requirement is quite substantial and a broad physics case is needed for successful approval.

    

9. Shifts: It was agreed that 4 people will constitute a single shift crew and that a full sign-up of shifts will be required as soon as shift list is opened.

    

10. It was agreed that an attempt would be made to schedule major STAR meetings (Analysis meeting, Collaboration meetings) as far in advance as possible.

 

20030216

February 26, 2003

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Compiled by Bill Christie / Edited by T. Hallman

Present: T. Hallman (Chair), S. Vigdor, J. Thomas, H. Wieman, H.G. Ritter, D. Majka, J. Dunlop, P. Jacobs, G. Eppley, B. Christie, M. Kaplan, D. Keane

Phone Link: J. Marx

Time of Flight Proposal Report and Discussion

Dick Majka summarized the report of the STAR Committee that had reviewed the TOF proposal. The committee had two recommendations regarding the content of the TOF proposal:

 

1. There should be a rapid check to confirm that there are no technical integration issues for the TOF that could be "Show Stoppers".

    

2. A rough estimate of the budgetary impact of the integration issues should be compiled.

    

The Advisory Board was polled with the result that the Board strongly supported the TOF proposal for STAR, and believed it should move forward to the next step in the approval process, carrying out the above items quickly in parallel.

Report by the STAR Talks Committee Chair

Declan Keane gave a presentation to the Board on some current STAR Talks Committee policies. Various options were discussed on how to deal with various sorts of requests for STAR talks at conferences. One topic discussed was how invited talks should be dealt with. At present, everyone who is invited to give a talk on STAR results is expected to inform the Talks Committee of the invitation, but individuals are not expected to get approval before accepting the invitation.

There was discussion around the point that this policy should perhaps be changed so that in addition to informing the committee, an individual should wait to respond to the invitation until the STC gives its approval. It was noted that this is the way some other collaborations (specifically PHENIX) approach this question. It was discussed that in the vast majority of cases, the person invited to give the talk would likely be approved to to accept the invitation. The sense of the Board was that STAR should consider adopting such a policy regarding invited talks.

It was noted that Carl Gagliardi was scheduled to give a presentation to the STAR Council on Policy Issues regarding STAR talks, that this issue might be one that he and the Talks Policy Committee had already discussed. If not, the Talks Policy Committee should be asked to consider addressing this issue.

Discussion of whether to extend the Charter of the Advisory Board

The discussion centered on the fact that when the STAR Council set up the STAR Advisory Board it was explicitly stated that the utility of the Advisory Board must be revisited after one year, and that a positive vote of the STAR Council would be required to extend its charter. There was some discussion that perhaps the makeup of the Advisory should be revisited.

The point was made that the Advisoryy Board was set up to advise the STAR Spokesperson and Council Chair in carrying out their duties. Both Tim and Jay indicated that they'd found the discussions with, and advice from, the Advisory Board very useful, and that they both wanted to see it continue.

Brief discussion of any forseen issues with the FY03 Shutdown plan

The primary points raised in this discussion were:

 

• Jim Thomas will inquire what the SSD group's priorities and plans are

   

• The upper EEMC lifting fixture is a critical path item

   

• There may be an issue with the clear fiber production schedule for the BEMC

   

Discussion of new responsibilities of the Deputy Spokespersons

This was an informational item for the Advisory Board. Tim Hallman discussed that he had asked Jim Thomas to take responsibility for tracking the progress of new detector sub-system projects. This includes tracking projects through the design, construction, installation, and initial commissioning stages. In this role Jim will also be a point of contact for BNL Management and DOE if they have questions on the progress of ongoing STAR upgrades.

Tim also discussed that he had asked Steve Vigdor and Dick Majka to help guide the efforts within STAR related to further development of STAR's future upgrade plans. This effort involves building on the work by the Upgrades Steering Committee, Chaired by Tom Ludlam, and performing simulation studies and R&D to further define and refine the physics issues to be addressed in the future, as well as the ability of proposed detector technologies to extract this physics.

Discussion of FY03 Capital Equipment and R&D funds

• STAR received a recent disbursement of about 250 k$ for FY03 capital equipment. These were used largely for the construction of the Forward Pi Zero Detector. In addition, RCF funding allocated for STAR use was increased by approximately $150k, allowing for the purchase of a number of additional tape drives for STAR to allow synching and analyzing data at the same time efficiently.

   

• An additional 250 k$ has been requested as part of a revised FY03 request to the DOE. We should know more about these possible additional funds within a few weeks.

   

• It is also expected that information regarding the amount of R&D funds available to STAR should be known in a few weeks.

 

20030605

June 5, 2003

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Present: T. Hallman (Chair), B. Christie, J. Dunlop, G. Eppley, H. Huang, P. Jacobs, T. Ljubicic, D. Majka, J. Marx, H.G. Ritter, J. Thomas, H. Wieman

 

1. Discussion of nominations for new STAR Talks Committee members to replace the people due to rotate off the panel.

   The Board discussed some of the considerations for the makeup of the STC (e.g. international representation, confidence in the Board's balance and fairness, etc.) as well as possible candidates. The Board will give input and select two people from those nominated by email after the meeting.

    

2. Draft Upgrades Outline/Direction for Response to Tom Kirk

   There was a brief discussion concerning the decadal (upgrades) plan solicited by Tom Kirk for discussion at the upcoming PAC meeting in September. The plan is to have a draft ready for the collaboration to read and comment on by mid-July. A final draft would be sent to the Advisory Board and the Council towards the end of that month, for review, and discussion/conclusion during their meetings at the Collaboration meeting in August.

   The Beam Use Request will be similar. It is due to Tom Kirk by August 29th.

    

3. Discussion of possible funding profiles/priorities for initial upgrade construction projects as a function of fiscal year (possible MRPC TOF Barrel, Micro-Vertex Tracker Scenarios from 2004-2007)

   There was some discussion of the near-term prospectus for STAR upgrades. It is hoped that the DOE supported Major Item of Equipment (MIE) construction project for the MRPC Barrel Time Of Flight detector could begin in FY2005. It would continue through FY2006 in the proposal that has been submitted to BNL Management. It was also discussed that the proposal for a micro-vertex detector should be ready for review by the Collaboration in December of this year, so that (assuming it is approved) it can be included in the BNL Field Work Proposal next February for a possible construction start in FY2006 (starting the project at this time is not guaranteed; but for this to be possible at all, it must be included in the BNL field work proposal submitted in February of 2004).

    

4. A report on STAR's future requirements for computational capabilities -- hardware (CPU, storage, networking, etc.) and software for the next 5 years and how development plans for RCF, PDSF, etc. map onto these plans....e.g. what is our strategic plan for computing?

   Due the rigors of the ittf review, there was not a presentation or detailed discussion on this point. A general consensus though was that we need to examine our future needs for computing with input from different interests/segments of the Collaboration and have some detailed discussion of this at the Collaboration meeting in August.

    

5. Initial thoughts/discussion on next year's Beam Use Request.

   There was a brief discussion that the working assumption for cryo operation of RHIC in the next run is 27 weeks; subtracting approximately 3 weeks for machine needs (cool down, warm up, etc.) and 5 weeks of setup for each configuration, it would be very challenging to run two configurations (which would leave a total of 14 weeks for physics data taking, best case). The concern was whether we could reasonably have both an ion run and a spin run in the same year as we did this year, or there should be two more or less dedicated runs (one for ions, one for spin) in consecutive years. Support was expressed for some time (a few weeks) at a minimum for spin physics machine development to insure important questions could be answered, and the momentum of the program could be maintained. No firm conclusion was reached; it was stated we need input from the collider people as well to know what makes sense.

    

Item that came up from the floor:

Discussion of the upcoming colloquium and press release. There was discussion surrounding this event, and a recommendation that the Spokesperson insure to the extent possible that the language of the press release reflect STAR's viewpoint.

20030812

August 12, 2003

Michigan State University

Recorded by T. Hallman

 

Attending: J. Lauret (invited), R. Majka, M. Kaplan (Observer), J. Dunlop, H. Huang, G. Eppley, J. Thomas, T. Hallman, H. Wieman, B. Christie, T. Ljubicic

The following topics were discussed:

 

1. Beam Use Request:

   The discussion began with general considerations regarding the BUR: that it will be important coming up to the Long Range Plan that the heavy ion part of the program gets good grades concerning the effort to search for the QGP; that to realize the spin program that has been envisioned there needs to be steady yearly progress and a lot of integrated luminosity; that whatever BUR is developed we have to insure that it does not put us in the position of doing everything uniformly poorly.

   It was reiterated that a clear statement in the BUR submitted would be that a nominal running period of 27 weeks is not sufficient to carry out the heavy ion and spin physics programs without significantly delaying and/or damaging the spin program, the heavy ion program, or both.

   The scenarios planned to be discussed at the open session at the Collaboration meeting, (previously sent to the Collaboration in email) and their implications were discussed.

   The consensus was that a plan which came as close as possible to optimizing the use of the time given all of the goals and constraints was a plan with several performance based goals:

    

   1. start with full energy AuAu running with the goal of integrating 30 million central events useful for open charm, and > 50 million min bias for elliptic flow studies, running 50% live to accomodate rare triggers (high pt, upsilon, etc.) Other strangeness, HBT, UPC, e x e goals would be accomodated in this data set as well.

       

   2. work to achieve very high efficiency of data collection; if the above goals achieved quickly enough request 2 weeks at roots_NN = 63 GeV for high pt and soft physics comparison data.

       

   3. dedicate 5 weeks to spin physics machine development. If machine performance is good, request 3 additional weeks for spin physics data taking.

       

    

2. Decadal Plan

   There was a discussion of the existing draft Decadal Plan document. It was discussed that there needed to be a section included on computing. Also that Dick Majka was going to set a deadline for final comments of August 22.

    

3. Other Topics and Action Items

    

   1. T. Hallman indicated that he was going to oversee the writing of a 1-2 page executive summary for the Decadal Plan.

       

   2. J. Lauret indicated he would add a section to the Decadal Plan on the outlook for STAR computing in the future

       

   3. T. Hallman indicated that he was going to propose to the STAR Council that the STAR Software and Computing Leader be officially included as a member of the Advisory Board

       

   4. There was discussion concerning the need to be more comprehensive about identifying, listing, and tracking service work for students.

       

   5. There was discussion of comments made at the STAR critique meeting concerning staffing of shifts, training, etc. Two important conclusions (others are under conisderation and may be forthcoming) were that to be optimally efficient, there should be 2 detector operators on each shift in addition to the shift leader. (The precise makeup of the remainder of the shift staff TBD.) Also, that it was critical that people were conscientious about staying for the overlap day and insuring a robust transfer of knowledge and training to the oncoming shift.