Harvard-2017:C1

From CMB-S4 wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Back to Harvard-2017 main page

Parallel Session C1: governance structures (Chairs: John Carlstrom & Suzanne Staggs) [Jefferson 356]

Presented during the parallel session:

Notes from session

(from STS)

  • Looking at slide 3 -- with the project + collaboration -- re-enforce the thing that Karen pointed out before that the best collaborations/ projects have very big overlap of humans between the two, with important L2 and L3 roles filled by collaboration people, including at the L2 and L3 level
  • Kent -- what is the thought about the technical board -- how does collaboration impact it? Answer: we have to Technical board is PM and all the L2 leaders for Mu2E, says Karen.
  • John K -- Executive committee -- is it advisory or decisive?
  • Vlad -- make the distinction that this collaboration does more than science but is in pursuit of a particular project (for now) -- don't just call it a science collaboration
  • Neelima -- what does "SOC members?" mean? You should be careful about making sure it is not just the people who should be in charge of everything. Lots of people would say that existing collaborations were run by dictators in the past. If you keep going like that things will disintegrate.
  • Suzanne -- the ICCC is actually meant to coordinate.
  • Suzanne -- Karen & Brenna have suggested that you might need to form an Institutional Board first. Karen: then a smaller group will actually coordinate and right a draft of bylaws for the IB to approve or request modifications.
  • Steve Allen -- DESC is more democratic in that the spokesperson is elected by all members, which are defined by whether they do a significant amount of work, and can include postdocs.
  • Lloyd -- should there be a governance bylaws working group? Suzanne -- one option is to form the IB now and separately have a bylaws working group. JC: we could set up an email for the bylaws working group and see who comes -- we could call for nominations and then
  • Brad -- the boxes will be populated by fielded experiments, and then others will be John C: no. Suzanne: instead you are being asked to buy in now by engaging and doing some work.
  • Karen: institution needs to have a tenured or permanent person to have a member as a rule. That is the minimum, say Karen and
  • Idea for this interim planning is to take it to the next meeting, ideally.
  • Suggestion: set a firm date for dissolution of any ICCC or other top box.
  • Lloyd thinks a working group is something that you join up to do
  • Clem and Lloyd (and others) suggest to set up an IB now to solve problems -- this is a thing to ratify decisions. Lloyd says it should be an interim board that is very inclusive. John C had an experience with HEAD where it was super hard to dissolve such an interim board. John Kovac has a similar concern.
  • John C suggests that we could decide who votes based on having participated in two of these workshops, for example.
  • Kent suggests putting four options down for the ICCC
    • Augmented SOC;
    • Nominations (inc self) / vote by workshop meeting attendees (with PhDs)
    • Current SOC self nominates 4 people, and then self nominations for five from the rest of collaboration; or define a total number like 15 and figure out what to do with it.
  • We take a straw vote and the final option is the one that is most popular
  • Another option is to have half-way-through meeting with several postdocs and junior faculty (or what have you) for broader representation

Action items/Next steps

Summarize action items here