SC Governance Subcommittee telecon 12/18/2020

Participants

Intro

 

Paolo: introduction

Andrea: brief comment about pragmatic contribution

Ludo: boundary conditions 

Ludo has shown a list of boundary conditions (see next slide). 

Francesco has seen it in the past, and has sent comments to Ludo. Some of it is included. Some is not 

Other comments by Francesco:

Agency Level

  • JAXA asked CNES to take lead of MHFT (I would rather say the CNES proposed to lead the MHFT)
  • JAXA leaves SGS responsibility to Scientific Collaboration (To be confirmed by JAXA & Masashi)
  • ASI asks for more hardware visibility (I would say: ASI asks for balanced visibility, which is the last point in the list. Perhaps: Italian HW scientist asks to contribute to MHFT-PO lead level, proportionally to HW contribution, and this should go into the “collaboration” conditions in right column)
  • ASI proposed to take the lead on a European SGS (ASI asks to insert the SGS in the management structure of the European LiteBIRD collaboration, potentially leading it

 

Collaboration:

  • SGS is an international issue led by Japan (is this point stated somewhere?)
  • Responsibilities on Computing Facilities (Infrastructure+data storage+data exchange+job interface) are separated from those on Data Analysis (Pipelines) (still, the infrastructure will have to run the pipeline, and will have responsibility to deliver products)

 

Other comments and discussion about possible sharing of responsibilities among the community and an agency 

 

RS:

  • We must clarify what is the responsibility of the SGS leading agency 
    • providing HW, SW? maintaining software?
    • if an agency takes responsibility on SGS, this will be a responsibility on the SGS, which JAXA (TBC) wants on the Scientific collaboration 

 

PN: 

  • An agency can provide a professional structure for managing and coordinating the SGS. 
  • ASI is available to lead the SGS development, is not requesting it.
  • In Italy we already have a professional structure and experience for managing and coordinating the SGS.  

 

LM:

  • An agency can make sure we are set to deliver
  • we may not need any agency level in this (interpreting Radek message)

 

PN

  • the QA will be lead by scientists
  • scientists will run the pipeline 
  • not done by an external company
  • we may need a PM from agency 

 

LM:

  • we may need a PM for the infrastructure
  • coordination for science exists, and is on the collaboration side

 

PN

  • responsibility of the computers, doesn’t mean responsibility of deciding the pipelines. But the delivery of products, based on pipelines defined by the collaboration
  • Agency can decide who the SGS manager is.
  • Agency will never accept the model in which they pay, and the person implementing it is chosen by some else. 
  • the agency providing infrastructure, is also responsible for delivering of scientific products

 

  • delivery of products, distribution and archiving follow under agency responsibility and in particular selecting responsible people
  • science analysis on products is left to the collaboration

 

[ Clarification from AZ: Agency that will principally financially support the SGS will obviously want a corresponding return. In case ASI will lead the SGS, they would not do this with ASI personnel. They will ask the Scientific Community do so ]

 

EC:

  • hard to comment
  • both IT and FR communities want to have a leading role on this 
  • this is good
  • we need to find the right balance
  • this applies to the full collaboration
  • money is coming from these agencies at the moment 
  • there is ESA and other agencies to be included in the collaboration 
  • personal opinion: everything should be on the table and discussed now. We can talk to IGB and Masashi and request for international discussion
  • the discussion is too bi-polar 
  • request of balance is natural 
  • no surprises that agencies are willing to put flags

 

  • science and DA are not on the table here. 
  • more than that is needed.
  • the GS is an infrastructure as the MHFT-PO. Not data analysis nor science 

 

LM:

  • need a clear definition of SGS

 

EC:

  • we need an impartial point of view on the definition of the SGS role
  • may be not part of the collaboration. For an impartial contribution 
  • define the structure first
  • then see how in europe we can fit in the structure 

 

LM

  • I agree 
  • this definition of the SGS has to be agreed at the international level 

 

LM:

  • Also Ingunn addressed this point 
  • I asked Masashi if he is fine with this (no much energy in SGS from Masashi so far)

 

EC:

  • we can ask the collab to make progress on the SGS, in order to make progress of the MHFT-PO, with all partners involved
  • we may need a dedicated IGB meeting 

 

FP:

  • europe can have a leading role in the international SGS structure
  • we need to agree and we need a management structure to coordinate this

 

EMG:

  • a positive way of approaching the topic
  • don’t like the IT/FR polarization 
  • better to talk about European organization and visibility 
  • the definition of who manages should be done by ourself 

 

LM

  • agree polarization is really bad
  • proposal by Fr scientists
    • not look at the EU level only
    • SGS led by Japan
    • with all participating
    • French scientists think it will be great for LB to build something at international level for the SGS
    • we may not need an EU level, except for the infrastructure 

 

TM:

  • I cannot speak for CNES regarding SGS position 
  • I agree that the first thing that has to be done is to obtain from JAXA what they want to do; there are many different SGS definitions maybe one per project

Attachments