Harvard-2017: Elements of the S4 Collaboration

Back to Harvard-2017 main page

Elements of the S4 Collaboration (Moderator: John Carlstrom)

[charge to moderator: find 2-3 examples to display as kickoff]

Post talks here.

• Collaboration Elements by Example: PPT, PDF -- Brenna Flaugher
• Governance structures -- Karen Byrum [PDF] , [PPT]
• Membership policy + mentoring -- Steve Kuhlmann PDF PPT
• Publication + talks policy -- Nathan Whitehorn PDF Discussion Intro
• Wrap Up -- Interim Planning -- Suzanne Staggs PDF, PPTX

• Prep for Parallels 2 -- science updates for Decadal: Colin, Cora, and Shaul PDF

Notes from session

• 3:30PM Collaboration Elements by Example - Brenna Flaugher
  • Collaborations grow and evolve, policies are to guide that evolution, not to set in stone what will happen infinitely in the future
  • DES example:
    • DES started with ~20 people at 5 institutions, now 400 scientists at 25 institutions
      • Q: what stage was DES at then compared to where we are now?
        • behind where we are now, because it was a brand new idea.
        • CD3 in 2008
    • DES had a single head (John Peoples) but management committee (with reps from each institution) was very important for the collaboration feeling like they were involved and represented.
    • DES has a brand new org chart now that it's in operations
      • Q: Were decisions made by the management committee binding?
      • Yes, all decisions went to them, and their decisions were binding. Director was chair of that committee but did not have veto power.
    • leadership roles are one of the big perks of a large collaboration and there needs to be a good process for filling them.
      • consider two people in each position and rotate one each year
      • volunteers / self-nominations
  • DESI example
    • forged from two competing groups (DES / SDSS)
    • institutional board created from *all* interested groups on both sides
      • started with ~75 people but quickly decayed
    • institutional membership and contributions reviewed every year
      • initially, this was mostly money, which is useful to convince DOE you're serious
  • LSST example
    • NSF / DOE division similar to what might happen for S4
  • CMS example
    • collaboration board has one member per region/country
  • takeaway message: big collaborations don't just happen, you have to work on them
    • flexibility is key
    • funding sources need to be reflected in org structure (agencies need to be represented)
    • need to be cognizant of postdoc & grad student timescales, incl. how to make transition between junior & senior roles
  • Questions
    • have you seen examples of good and bad leadership?
      • a good team works even when leadership is questionable
    • can you distill into a few core elements the structure that DOE and NSF will impose on us?
      • DOE won't impose a structure but has strong expectations for management
    • How did NSF accept separate projects for LSST?
      • No, it was multiple science collaborations, but still one project.
    • In these examples, how many leaders were elected directly?
      • DES does not elect directly, CDF did, DESC does
    • Did the division between the two camps in DESI persist throughout?
      • no, it pretty much died out over time

• 4:00PM Governance structures - Karen Byrum
  • three examples of by-laws: IceCube (~300 members, 48 institutions, 12 countries); Mu2e (~230, 37, 6), DESI (530, 79, 9)
  • by-laws define the role of the institutional board, which is the policy-forming body
  • by-laws should define a series of things about the IB:
    • who can be on the IB & how selected?
    • voting process
    • how to select spokesperson and/or chair?
    • how frequently to meet?
  • by-laws define the role of the executive board / committee (advises scientific leadership)
  • by-laws define scientific leadership (spokesperson)
    • more than one spokesperson? deputy? need one from each region / sub-field / etc.?
    • how are they nominated, how do they accept?
    • terms, elections, etc.
  • Questions
    • In IceCube, there is another informal committee (international funding agencies)
      • that's project, we are talking science collaboration
      • could be a resource board
    • Will there be conflicts between project leadership and scientific leadership?
      • needs to be strong communication between the two, including possibly science representation on project leadership
    • Is there a clear demarcation between what project leadership and scientific leadership do? (E.g., who is in charge of producing maps?)
      • project ends when instrument is build, then you're in operations
        • so project management ends then?
          • no
            •  ?
    • lots of questions about project management...

• 4:25PM Membership policy + mentoring - Steve Kuhlmann
  • What does "member" mean?
    • senior-ish person, possibly with a required minimum %FTE on the project, often with associated postdocs & students
    • when postdocs move on, usually given a new title and remain in the collaboration, but that new institution is not given a spot on the IB
  • IB is final word on membership (sometimes 2/3 vote required)
    • often have membership subcommittee as initial filter
    • stay flexible!
  • membership and publication policies can be coupled but don't have to be
  • preference usually given to groups, not individual people at institutions
    • one-person institutions often "associate members" (can band together and get representation)
  • specific membership policy examples: IceCube (short) & DES (long)
  • buy-in
    • helps to buy stuff because money doesn't really turn on until CD2
    • example of in-kind contributions that can replace cash buy-in (DES document)
  • external collaborator concept
    • unique to DES?
    • non-members can apply to use some part of data
  • builder idea
    • normal membership not always guarantee of authorship, but large infrastructure effort is
  • nine questions about membership policy (see talk)
  • Questions
    • Do you have to have an IB?
      • never seen a collaboration without one
      • DESC does not have one, but it's a different beast
    • Is cash buy-in really practical? Do you distinguish between people who pay a lot of cash and people who do stuff?

most institutions on DES are only ~1/3 cash

• • • • on DESI, any DOE institution could come in with no cash
    • When does the buy-in happen? We don't have a project yet.
      • institutions do buy in before approval, often at a discounted rate because of higher risk, but buy-in makes more sense for a defined project
    • How do CMB collaborations work now, given that none of them have bylaws?
      • perhaps there is a threshold of collaboration size beyond which you need them
      • funding agencies know how to deal with collaborations, not amorphous groups of people

• 4:50PM Publication + talks policy - Nathan Whitehorn
  • What are the goals?
    • good science disseminated widely
    • appropriate credit assigned
    • protect younger people
    • somehow recognize critical dirty work (e.g., calibration)
  • Panel discussion with representatives from three large collaborations
    • Joe Formaggio (SNO, Project 8, KATRIN)
      • the only important thing the collaboration board really does is write down the publication policy
      • maintain member list (6 months to be added, 1 year off the project to be dropped)
      • different classes of papers (collaboration-wide, official but not all authors, not official but by collab members and usually circulated)
    • Charles Lawrence (Planck)
      • similar breakdown in papers
      • authorship was never automatic (had to say "I want to be an author")
      • "Planck Scientist" like builder on DES (can be on any paper)
      • always alphabetical, can be no other way
      • Planck talks policy didn't work, so not saying anything about it
    • Brenna Flaugher (DES)
      • DES has key projects and non-key projects with different policies
      • key papers are alphabetical, pretty much anything else can be first-author
  • Questions
    • How do you get to lead an analysis project?
      • on DES, need approval from working group
      • DOE wants a unified public front
    • What about key projects?
      • WG decides
        • so if you do a really good job, you are more likely to lose first authorship?
        • no, you can still write a first-author paper about part of the analysis
      • in Project 8, key analyses are identified at collaboration meetings
    • How well did these policies work in getting people credit?
      • what worked in Planck were written letters of recommendation; what didn't work was the talks policy
      • in SNO, credit was assigned by collaboration board, and it was important to cycle those people

Action items/Next steps

Summarize action items here