D

1
DØ International Finance CommitteeScrutiny Panel

• John Womersley
• Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia,
  Illinois
• 3 April 2003

2
Scrutiny Panel

• Is in place
• Peter Ratoff (UK)
• Jean Karyotakis (France)
• Klaus Ehret (Germany)
• John Cooper (FNAL-PPD)
• Steve Wolbers (FNAL-CD)
• John Womersley (DØ)
• Discussions by e-mail
• Telephone meetings on January 7 and February 4

3
January 7 meeting

• Cost of maintenance of the central (d0mino) SGI
  machine
• All agree the cost is high CD are pushing DØ to
  migrate away from this machine in order to reduce
  maintenance costs. Scrutiny panel would like to
  see such a plan if the common fund is expected to
  contribute to the maintenance costs in the short
  term.
•  Why do tape costs double between FY02 and FY03?
• This was a conservative estimate. Steve Wolbers
  presented a new estimate of 250-300k taking
  account of new tape technology
• Consider excluding computing professionals who
  cover desktop support for PPD physicists
• Agreed that such support should be excluded from
  the common fund.
• Consider excluding certain detector support tasks
  if they are Fermilab institutional commitments to
  certain subsystems. PPD electrical and
  mechanical support costs seem high
• The scrutiny panel believes that the common fund
  should cover costs associated with the
  experimental hall, infrastructure, cryogens,
  and magnets. It should not cover the costs of
  maintaining Fermilab-built detector subsystems.
  We will need a breakdown of electrical and
  mechanical technician costs along these lines.
• Similarly, consider online computing in PPD as an
  institutional commitment?
• The scrutiny panel felt that online and slow
  controls were a legitimate component of the
  common fund (example of BaBar).

Note some members of the panel felt this is
too restrictive an interpretation
4
February 4 meeting

• Continued discussion of Fermilab technician
  manpower, after receiving breakdown of tasks
  performed.
• The scrutiny panel agrees that all these
  activities are needed for the   operation of the
  experiment.
• But, if we were to follow the example of BaBar
• we would not include any of the Fermilab-staff
  electrical or mechanical technicians in the OCF
• we would include all the online support staff
• the IFC should be the body that decides if D0
  wants to follow (in such detail) the example of
  BaBar

5
If we do proceed this way
6
Common Fund per physicist
If we do proceed this way

• Need an updated census of DØ collaborators, but
• 674 on masthead
• 167 students (not all on masthead)
• Approximately 550 Ph.D. collaborators
• 3M per year 5,450 per Ph.D. per year
• I have been telling people to use 5000 as an
  approximate number in talking to their agencies