Choose timezone
Your profile timezone:
ePIC Collaboration Council Meeting
→
America/New_York
Description
This is an open CC meeting. All ePIC members are invited.
See below for five new applications to join the ePIC Collaboration. Following the Charter, the application proposals should then be made available to the CC for review at least 2 weeks prior to a CC meeting.
Minutes from the ePIC Collaboration Council Meeting on April 17, 2026
Mode : online
Agenda: https://indico.bnl.gov/event/32806/
The following minutes refer to the agenda above and only record the discussion and questions not contained in the posted talks.
1) Thomas Ullrich - Welcome slides
- Approval of minutes 55/56 vote to approve, 1 abstain
- no additional questions
2) Daniel Brandenburg - CTC discussion
- Silvia Della Torre comments that it is important to know the distribution of the collaboration (in terms of gender, career position etc) in order to have a meaningful interpretation of the talk statistics. Daniel says he will work on normalized distributions
- Ernst Sichtermann asks about next steps that could be taken in trying to address some of the biases that are inherent in collecting this data (for example self-reporting bias). Daniel responds that one of the benefits of the automated workflow is that it should give more consistent and less biased data.
- Guido Maria Urciuoli asks how dual representation is accounted for in these statistics. Daniel says that the person is only counted once, but both institutions are credited.
- Barbara Jacek asks if it is possible to log into comanage with a home institution instead of a lab account. Daniel responds it is possible and he has found it does work. Thomas put link to instructions on the website into the chat.
- Silvia Della Torre asks what to for talks that discuss ePIC in general (ie not associated with a just one working group) in the workflow submission. Daniel responds several people raised this issue and they are thinking how to address it.
- Maria Zurek asks if emails are sent to the appropriate working group in the workflow? Daniel responds that is the first step in the automated emails. There is no email to the general collaboration and committee is considering this. Daniel also comments that they are working support comments via annotated pdfs.
- Ernst Sichtermann asks if the 8 day rule is realistic as there are many reasons why late contributions come in. Daniel says that committee understands there are exceptions and they will be flexible, but the majority of the "late" submissions are simply poor planning, that is the speaker has known about the talks for many months..
- Thomas Ullrich asks if there are statistics about funding limiting acceptance of talks. Daniel says the committee has not tracked this and people often don't offer this information and it is a bit sensitive to inquire.
3) Eric Lancon - Membership Committee Policy Update
- Barbara asks for definition of coordinators. Eric responds there are activity coordinators and detector coordinators. John makes the note that we need to find another word as the people verifying the SOS extend before thee coordinators and include the working group conveners. Eric notes and will come up with new word to help clarify going forward
There are minutes attached to this event.
Show them.
