Presentation on theme: "ATLAS UK Computing PMB Meeting 12 Sep 2001 Roger Jones."— Presentation transcript:
ATLAS UK Computing PMB Meeting 12 Sep 2001 Roger Jones
RWL Jones, Lancaster University History Bid submitted 31 May 2003 – this defines the framework Revised bid after referees report 14 th July Reduced each post to SP9 80.6 s-y of effort requested PPRP on 14 th July Roger and Norman present Not positive about the documented bid Much happier after the presentation PPRP (and Neil Geddes concerns) Flat management structure Not so we have many WPs and will have subproject leaders (see the text) Some concern over missing skills sets/current involvement Partly eased after private communications Lack of coherence Disputed! The bid was coherent, but not tightly focussed on single task Lack of allocation and prioritisation did not help
The End of History? Informal indications after meeting say to plan 50% and 70% scenarii GOB met in late July, recommendation made to Science Committee This is not final There will be strings attached – This will have to match the programme, have defined deliverables, quarterly reporting etc Repeated objections to `spreading the jam’ – we need to justify allocations to NiG etc Computing Manpower Review 2-5 Sept @ CERN NiG was on panel Needs highlighted there give him ammunition to support parts of our bid (esp. core and infrastructure) Science Committee meets in Oct – earliest announcement
RWL Jones, Lancaster University Allocation Procedure We must pass our proposed programme and allocations to the UK CB by the last week of September It is hard to see how we can allocate in a 12-person committee Sub-committee? But everyone will have a vested interest. Then discuss by phone conference and produce the final allocation You would be surprised if I did not have some rough allocation. In my view, 60% of posts can be allocated without too much controversy, the remainder require a match of skills etc to the post + making sensible numbers of `warm bodies’ If we do not give sensible (NiG’s definition, not ours!) allocations, we risk being reduced.
RWL Jones, Lancaster University Proposal I form a subgroup of ~4 people to vet bids Members will sit-out on discussion of their own institutes (membership could be a plus or a minus!) Bids should follow the pro-forma on the next slide You should should not stray much from the EoIs without good reason The involvement at the EoI and construction of task descriptions will be a factor Suggested bundles would help Bids to be in by Friday 19 th midday
RWL Jones, Lancaster University Bid Pro-Forma Task to be bid for (as described in the Proposal to PPARC and table circulated) Matching existing effort Named Level of effort in FTEs Skill sets and expertise brought to the task Primarily software related in most cases, but also detector expertise where applicable By the matching expert By others in the ATLAS Group Activity within the existing ATLAS Computing programme Activity in the physics preparation programme Other factors
RWL Jones, Lancaster University TrackingTaskEoI Task Definition SCT Digits QMULQMUL SCT Monitoring L’pool, Man Liverpool, Manchester Alignment and Calibration L’pool, Man, Ox, RAL Oxford, RAL, Liverpool, Manchester Core Tracking Sheff, RAL RAL, Oxford V0 Finding LancsLancaster 2 nd vertex finder Lancs, Sheff, L’pool, UCL Lancaster, UCL Brem. Recovery and e/gamma Lancs, Sheff Lancaster; Sheffield General fitter Lancaster; UCL Late conversion finder Sheff Lancaster; Sheffield Kink Finder Cambridge Tracking Validation and monitoring Man Manchester (Lancs) 2 subprojects