Re: Working group meeting

Kate Scholberg (schol@budoe.bu.edu)
Sat, 27 Mar 1999 12:08:29 -0500

> Since March '99 LVD has been integrated in the test.
> Everybody seems to agree that each experiment must have access
> to the same information.
> So including one LVD member in the restricted number of persons
> having access to the complete information, we could solve the
> privacy problem and state the principle of equal dignity among
> experiments.
> As soon as any other detector join the SNnet test, a new member
> will have access to the complete information.
>
> Rules of privacy and safety presently respected by you (Kate,
> Alec and Marc) will be simply accepted and respected by new members
> of this restricted group of people.
> Of course only the names of these persons must be public, not the
> information which they have access to.
>

In a nutshell,
here's what I was going to propose: (quite consistent with your suggestion)

- The "working group" can consist of several individuals from each
collaboration. These people decide technical issues, do the actual
work on the code, and act as liasons to their collaborations.
Currently, the working group is all the people on the mailing list.

- Since the working group is getting fairly large, and access to
alarm information is quite sensitive, I propose that we define a
smaller subset of the working group, who will have actual access to
*alarm information*. This subgroup will include at least one person
per experiment. All such people agree to respect privacy rules. The
"subgroup" is currently me, Alec, Mark, and one or two people from
LVD, to be designated, and will include other experiment members as
the experiments join. Of course the names of the people in the subgroup
will be public.

What do you think?

Kate.