YPP - Meeting

Those present:

Bonnie Fleming, John Krane, Sam Zeller,
Florencia Canelli, Brian Connolly, Robin Erbacher, Ben Kilminster, Mayda Velasco, Eric Zimmerman
Sabine and Richard (from DESY)

Discussion Agenda:

• Group Status
• Affiliation
• Survey
• Mayda's Working Group

Meeting Minutes: recorded by Sam Zeller

(1) Group Status

Since our last YPP meeting, we have made several presentations announcing our group. One at the DPF2000 conference public forum held in Columbus, Ohio in August and again at a DPF Executive Committee Meeting held at Fermilab on December 21, 2000. At the DPF conference, we were approached by Catherine Newman-Holmes and asked if we would like a link to our site placed on the DPF homepage. This required some substantial restructuring to our webpage but this link has since been established. In December, we were asked to make a brief presentation to the DPF Executive Committee explaining what our group is about. The members of the Executive Committee were friendly, but somewhat skeptical of our ideas. However, one intriguing issue that did come up was whether or not we want to become officially affiliated with DPF.

(2) Affiliation

Since the invitation has been presented to us, do we want to become official members of DPF?

• Pros:
  • will lend legitimacy to our group
  • will enable us to get funds (travel money!)
  • can use their wisdom as a guide
  • they have to put us on their agenda and listen to us
  • might be useful in the long term
• Cons:
  • we lose academic freedom? how much do we lose?
  • we might become "ghost members"
    (like the current role of the GSA on the UEC; the GSA doesn't have a formal vote)
• How do we join:
  • we will need to draft a charter
    (how do we elect and graduate members, who is eligible, etc.)
  • the earliest we can be affiliated is probably April

(2) Survey

We also discussed our current plan of conducting a national survey. John explained that we have gotten the impression that even our small group cannot come to an agreement on what the future should be, nor that we will be able to convince each other what that future is. In addition, several members of our group are strongly against expressing a single opinion even if we could reach one. A survey, on the other hand, is an excellent tool for gathering a whole host of opinions (not just our own) and for easily reaching young physicists at other labs. The ntuple format will allow us to study demographics, look for trends (as function of time, laboratory, etc.). The goal is to release the survey results in the form of a formal document and to present the results at Snowmass this summer. We also have the option of repeating the survey after Snowmass in order to obtain longitudinal results.

Eric first pointed out that we should keep the survey simple. If the survey is too complicated or has too many questions, people will get annoyed and not respond. Ben suggested setting a rule on how many questions can comprise the survey. Ben pointed out that it is more important to have more people than more answers per person.

Mayda recommended that we stay away from sociological questions and concentrate on physics content. From a physics point of view what should the future be? What physics topics are the most important? How can we accomplish these goals?

It is important to have quantifiable results that can be made available via an ntuple, but essay-based physics question might also be valuable. The essay portion can be optional. We can include quotes from the essay responses in our paper. We decided to include a mix of both essay and multiple choice questions.

The next issue that came up was the distribution method: how do we distribute the survey and what is the target/representative sample? Both the NSF and DOE have directory listings of HEP personnel. Goal is to have as many people reply to the survey as possible. We can make cuts later to define what we mean by "young" (i.e. require at least 3 years in grad school, not tenured, etc). Eric cautioned that we need to target people in a serious way; if the survey is distributed to too wide a group it might be filed as junk mail. This is another reason why we need travel money in order to advertise our survey at other labs. Bonnie will also contact a statistician for guidance in writing the survey. This will help address concerns the DPF had over our handling of systematic errors. Ben recommended going through a trial run of the survey and the associated response machinery in one month. We can first test the survey out on our own group.

We also divided up survey-related work tasks accordingly:

• Mayda/John/Sam/Robin/Debbie/Gordon : physics content of survey
• Bonnie/Florencia/Eric : target audience
• Ben/Brian : survey logistics (mechanics of the survey)

(2) Mayda's Working Group

Mayda pointed out that perhaps one of the largest criticisms of our group is that we do not seem to be getting involved in the working groups targeted for Snowmass. Part of the problem is that the Snowmass organizers are having a difficult time organizing and advertising the working groups. In response, Mayda is starting her own working group and has strongly encouraged members of YPP to get involved. She gave what I thought was a very inspirational presentation. One of her working groups will be considering the option of a gamma-gamma machine devoted to Higgs. In addition, Mike Shaevitz has put her and Peter Kasper in charge of a very broad study group to consider whether or not we want to invest $300M in a new proton driver. The new driver could deliver 4x higher intensity (more intense pbars, neutrons, mu-cooling experiments, muon storage rings, etc). Mayda is in the process of identifying conveners for each of the subgroups. Please contact Mayda Velasco if you would like to get involved or if you would like more information .