Minutes of SHUG Executive Committee Meeting of October 1, 2002
The Executive Committee convened by conference call at 2 PM EDT on October 1, 2002. 10 members were present. The members in attendance were:
- Meigan Aronson
- Dave Belanger
- Paul Butler
- Takeshi Egami
- Scott Misture
- Costas Stassis
- John Tranquada
- David Vaknin
- Angus Wilkinson
- Wouter Montfrooij
The first item on the agenda was the draft Plan for the User Program. At the ACNS meeting the committee asked about the plan for implementing the user program, and when that implementation might begin. It was agreed then that Greg Smith(HFIR) and Al Ekkebus (SNS) would prepare a draft plan of how to implement the user program to present to SHUG by September for comment and review and Jim Roberto set January of 2003 as the start of user program allocated beam time. John Tranquada indicated that, as of mid September, the document was undergoing internal review. Some concern was expressed over whether SHUG can have any meaningful input if the first experiments are to start January 1 of 2003. The feeling of the committee was that it would like to review the document as soon as possible, but that some slippage of the January start was not a grave concern at this point. Some other discussion ensued before it was agreed that further discussion should be tabled until a copy becomes available for review. John Tranquada as chair will inquire as to the status of the document and whether we can view an early draft if necessary.
Next on the agenda was the issue of how to deal with the chair becoming 50% an ORNL employee. The bylaws state that: “Neither the Chair nor Vice Chair shall be an employee of ORNL”. Takeshi Egami, current vice-chair and therefore chair for 2003 has recently accepted a joint appointment with the University of Tennessee and ORNL (50/50) which will commence in May of 2003. An option consistent with the bylaws would be for Takeshi to serve until May and then resign in favor of the then current vice-chair. No objections were raised to this course of action, although there was some uncertainty as to the length of time that the replacement chair should serve. Since officers are selected by the committee (“the Executive Committee in its first meeting shall select a Vice Chair from one of the new members of the Committee.”), it was noted that there is a fair amount of flexibility. It was further noted that no conflict will exist in January when the new committee convenes for the first time (with potentially over 50% new members) so that perhaps the final decision should be left up to the new body.**
A discussion about the upcoming elections came next. John Tranquada noted that we currently had 7 names of people willing to serve and 6 positions to fill. We however have no names to run as the graduate student or postdoc representative. John also asked if any of the members whose terms are coming to an end would like to stand for re-election. So far none have volunteered. Several new names, including student/postdoc names were put forth. A suggestion was made that ORNL and UT would be a likely place to find student/postdocs who would be interested in HFIR/SNS. While postdocs at other universities/facilities are welcome it was not clear to everyone on the committee that they would be that interested/motivated. It was noted that the bylaws not only task the executive committee with preparing a slate of candidates but that: “In preparing a slate of candidates, the Executive Committee shall attempt to provide appropriate representation on the Executive Committee of the principal activities at the SNS and HFIR. In addition, the Executive Committee shall strive to have scientific and institutional diversity reflected in the slate of candidates. Less than half of the members of the Executive Committee shall be employees of the SNS, HFIR, or JINS.” The need for a short biographical sketch/statement of interest for each candidate and to verify that each potential candidate is willing to stand was also noted. David Vaknin and Paul Butler agreed to co-ordinate the effort. Paul suggested a timeline of late October for a final committee review of the slate, early November emailing of ballots and a deadline for receipt of votes towards the end of November.
Finally the committee discussed the white paper on the SNS timeline and priorities in moving from commissioning to fully committed user operation. Many on the committee felt that they did not have enough knowledge/information to comment on the document in any specific way particularly as regards the time required to ramp up the power and do testing. Three primary parameters are being balanced: total available time, beam current, and reliability. The committee felt that the document as a whole was very reasonable and the choice of optimizing around a reliability of 90% before full user mode operation is important. The extra two years from first operation to user mode operation is a bit disappointing, but it was felt that as the major new neutron facility it is important to not rush things so much that future performance is sacrificed. John will write a brief statement of support, emphasizing the users concerns, to be circulated and iterated by the members before submital to SNS.
This being the first time that the conference call went through MCI in order to have toll free call-in capability, Paul Butler asked for comments. The response being positive, we will continue to use this service in the future.
The meeting adjourned at 2:55PM EDT
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Butler
SHUG Secretary
**NOTE: In email correspondence with the officers following the meeting, Dave Belanger, a co-author of the by-laws and past chair, explained that it was originally intended that, should a vice-chair accede to the office of chair early, this person would still serve as chair for the year beginning the following January (i.e. the term for which they were originally elected to serve as chair). This perspective should be taken into account when the final decision is made. The term for the vice-chair elected in mid-year then becomes an issue. The intent here is much less clear, but Dave Belanger suggests that his view would be that said vice-chair would be elected KNOWING that they are only to serve as vice-chair for the remainder of the term and would neither accede to chair nor continue as vice-chair the following year. This should be an item for further discussion at the next meeting.
