ILC communication meeting, CERN, 8-9 February 2005
DRAFT minutes JDG 9/2/2005
8 February 2005
Present: Peter Barratt, Karsten Buesser, Phil Burrows, Neil Calder, James Gillies, Judy Jackson, Michael Kobel, Francois Le Diberder

1) Judy Jackson's KEK presentation. Judy Jackson presented her talk from the KEK workshop last November, summarising the work of the ILC communications group (working group 6). She stressed the importance of having the value of communication recognised through having a dedicated working group. Judy reported that the number of hits on interactions.org continues to rise, with 39,000 in January.
2) Discussion of draft strategic plan. Phil Burrows asked how the professional communicators see the role of the professional physicists who are attached to the ILC communication effort. Judy Jackson, James Gillies and Neil Calder replied that the role of the physicist is essential. The ensuing discussion concurred, and moved onto a discussion of how the work should be divided. The communications professionals said that they see the production of communications tools as being an iterative process, with the raw material originating in the physics community.
3) Discussion of ILC newsletter. Neil Calder made the case for a weekly newsletter along the lines of Fermilab Today for the ILC community. There was a consensus that the community is currently ill informed, and that a newsletter could be a valuable tool for community building. There was a discussion of the goal, target audience and level, concluding that the level should be easy reading for particle physicists with the aim of team building in the global ILC community, and internal outreach to the wider particle physics community. The broader audience might also include funding agencies, alumni publications and, to a lesser extent, the scientific media. Phil Burrows pointed out that such a newsletter would require a sensitive and intelligent editor. This would not be possible without one FTE communicator per region forming an editorial committee. James Gillies suggested that the Editorship rotate among the three. Phil Burrows asked whether it would be possible to launch such a newsletter without these resources. There was a feeling that this would compromise the quality at the start. Judy Jackson reported that she is optimistic about finding funding for a North American ILC communication FTE. There was a discussion on where funding for a European equivalent might come from. Francois le Diberder suggested that national funding agencies in ECFA's larger Member States might be prepared to finance an FTE ILC communications post. This could also be supplemented by funding from the dissemination element of EU funded projects such as EuroTev and CARE. The person would be integrated into a laboratory communication office. Phil Burrows proposed to take this suggestion to Brian Foster for ECFA endorsement. Neil Calder proposed to report on this at the ICFA meeting at the end of he week. There was consensus that the newsletter should not be launched until at least two of the three FTEs are in place. It was agreed that Stanford LCWS in mid-March should be a deadline for reporting back on progress, with the goal of launching the newsletter by Snowmass.
4) The role of the three FTEs. The three FTE ILC communicators would have responsibility for all ILC communications issues (web, posters, texts, newsletter, exhibits) in the three regions. They will interface with the GDE and regional directors.
5) Upcoming announcement of GDE Director and site. It seems that there will not be an announcement of the GDE (Director or site) at the ICFA meeting in Vancouver this week. This is because the leading candidate has requested a period of weeks to consider his decision. However, at the ICFA meeting will discuss the leading candidates for Director and site. There is therefore a risk that the story will leak before any official announcement in the form of a press release can be prepared. Nevertheless, a press release will be prepared in advance of any announcement, built around quotes from the three regions.
6) Collaboration tool. Karsten Buesser drew attention to the ILC working group at DESY, which has considered the question of communication within the ILC community. He distributed a draft proposal for a collaboration tool and methodology on paper. He will send it in electronic form to the ILC communication group, and requests feedback on the proposal to be sent to Ferdi Willeke (ferdinand.willeke@desy.de), Nick Walker (nicholas.walker@desy.de), Eckhard Elsen (eckhard.elsen@desy.de), Ties Behnke (ties.behnke@desy.de) or himself.
7) ILC website. The web site exists (http://www.interactions.org/linearcollider/), but is lacking content. Michael Kobel pointed out that the list of participating laboratories is not complete, suggested a clickable map. Discussion concluded that this would be desirable, though difficult to implement as the ILC effort grows. This could be solved by having the ILC main site link through to national pages, for which someone would have responsibility. Updating material under Documents/Reports/Talks is patchy, a systematic way of providing the Webmaster with material is needed. Judy Jackson will invite the webmaster (Mieke van den Bergen) to contact Michael Kobel, Phil Burrows and Karsten Buesser to take this forward. An immediate objective is to use the communication talk at the SLAC ILC workshop to present the website in fine detail. A web site review will henceforth be a regular feature of ILC communication group meetings.
9) Logo proposals. Suggestions for logos were put forward by CERN, Fermilab and SLAC. For various reasons, none was considered to be appropriate. The consensus was that the logo should be simple, should carry the impression of linearity and collisions, and that the graphical element should stand-alone. The graphic designers who produced the original proposals will be asked to modify their designs. Peter Barratt suggested that commercial designers could be invited to submit proposals on a competition basis. A second round of designs should be ready for the SLAC workshop in March. There was a discussion of names. Phil Burrows suggested following NASA's lead and naming the ILC after a famous scientist.
10) Funding for ILC. Peter Barratt raised this question in order to gauge the support for the ILC project. He said that in the UK, PPARC is supporting R&D from its existing budget, but n o new government money has been committed. Neil Calder said that he was not aware of any official government support for the project beyond that allocated for R&D. Phil Burrows said that the current global spend on ILC work is around $60m/year. Karsten Buesser pointed out that the ILC is on the EU's agenda.
11) New US ILC committee appointed. The new seven-member US committee consists of two communications professionals and five physicists. The membership and mandate have been approved by the US ILC steering committee. Phil Burrows suggested that ECFA should be persuaded to set up a similar group for Europe. This was agreed.
12) ILC/LHC one-pager. A key issue for the ILC community is to explain why the ILC is necessary along with the LHC. Neil Calder added that the ILC cannot be promoted at the expense of the LHC. James Gillies pointed out that CERN's position is that there should be no irreversible decision taken on the ILC before the first LHC results are available. Phil Burrows said that there is no conceivable physics case that would argue against the LHC. Judy Jackson suggested that Symmetry magazine commission a short article on why we need the ILC. This would provide a natural deadline to have a working text. Neil Calder offered to produce a first draft one-pager.
13) Public participation. Judy Jackson described her experience of a community task-force that has been established at Fermilab. This group of inhabitants of the Fermilab area was charged with examining and advising on how Fermilab should interact with its neighbours. The Fermilab group heard presentations from Brookhaven and DESY on their experiences, and has just submitted its report to Fermilab. One key recommendation is that public participation should be considered for every new particle physics project. Fermilab uses a consulting company that specialises in public participation globally. The communication budget request for Snowmass includes an element to pay for a consultant from this consultancy to make a presentation on public participation at the workshop.
14) Exploring inner space: Peter Barratt presented a new PPARC brochure called Exploring Inner Space, which has a target audience of the UK Government. PPARC also produces a newsletter - PPARC and Parliament - which is distributed to members of parliament. Copies can be obtained from Peter.

9 February 2005
Present: Peter Barratt, Phil Burrows, Neil Calder, James Gillies, Judy Jackson, Michael Kobel
By telephone: Philip Bambade, Giorgio Chiarelli, Youhei Morita

1) Industry: Giorgio Chiarelli asked whether we discuss industry - how to get industry on board? We did not. Good point. Lots to learn. Judy Jackson says we have an offer from the CEO of Accel about the industry liaison. Judy suggests that we take up his offer on the occasion of our next meeting. Youhei Morita said that in Japan, there a forum of researchers and industry interested in the ILC project is being set up. The contact is Mr Ozaki. Giorgio Chiarelli said that in Italy, there are two approaches. INFN has a technology transfer activity with INFN personnel working closely with industry - a grass roots approach. There are also seminars at which government and industry representatives are briefed on opportunities in the medium term. They work with Confindustria, an organisation representing Italian manufacturing and service industries. Judy Jackson said that US companies have expressed an interest. Neil Calder pointed out that there are other groups in the ILC community working on industrialisation, and Phil Burrows added that DESY is organising a meeting on the subject later in the year. This meeting is targeted at European companies.
2) ILC/LHC one-pager: Giorgio Chiarelli asked what is meant by the CERN statement 'no-irreversible decision'. James Gillies replied that these are the precise words of the Director General, and that he couples this statement with funding becoming available at CERN and the feasibility of the CLIC project being known at the end of the decade. Ensuing discussion concluded that it would be desirable if this statement were clarified. Giorgio Chiarelli added that in existing documentation, There is a lack of clarity as to why the LHC and ILC are both necessary. The meeting felt that any statements made by particle physics community should not damage either. Neil Calder reminded the meeting that he would produce a first draft for discussion, which he will circulate very soon. Philip Bambade said that the only LHC results that could invalidate the choice of a TeV scale machine would be clear indications of physics at the multi-TeV scale. Phil Burrows said that this would not be clear for at least five years.
3) ILC web site: Philip Bambade asked for clarity on the plan for the ILC website. Judy Jackson replied that by the time of the ILC workshop at SLAC, some changes will have been implemented based on discussions that we had yesterday. Judy invited suggestions to be sent to her or to Mieke van den Bergen. Philip Bambade suggested a sub-group to take this forward. Phil Burrows added that the communication talk at the SLAC workshop will be used to present the site in detail. The goal is for the site to become a tool for the ILC community.
4) ILC forum: Philip Bambade drew attention to the ILC forum that has been set up for internal communication by SLAC, and asked how this relates to the ILC communication group. Judy Jackson reminded the meeting of the tool that Karsten Buesser presented yesterday. People are invited to provide feedback on the DESY proposal. The meeting agreed that parallel efforts should be avoided.
5) Dedicated FTE communications professionals: Youhei Morita said that it would be difficult to find the resources in Japan to fund such a post. Judy Jackson said that in Europe, a shared funding model is being investigated. In the USA, the DoE is being approached. It is felt that each of the three regions needs to be represented. Youhei Morita said that for Japan, it would have to be someone from the existing ILC community. Phil Burrows reiterated that he felt that a full-time dedicated communications professional per region, backed up by a number of physicists, is necessary. Neil Calder added that a communications background, coupled with an ability to integrate into the ILC community, is more important than a physics background. Youhei Morita said that if the funding could be shared between countries, then it might be possible. For the time being, there is no possibility of funding in Japan. Neil Calder will raise this question with Asians present at the ICFA meeting this week in Vancouver.
6) ILC newsletter: Youhei Morita requested a dedicated meeting to discuss the ILC newsletter. This will be tabled for the InterAction meeting in Frascati next month.
7) Lepton-photon conference in Uppsala: communication opportunities? Giorgio Chiarelli asked whether the ILC community should target the EPS conference as well. The meeting felt that any opportunity at a conference to present the project should be taken. Judy Jackson said that she has approached the organiser of the Lepton-Photon symposium about getting ILC communication on the agenda for the symposium. He will raise it with the programme committee. Linear collider talks are already on the agenda for both the EPS and the Lepton-Photon symposium. For the EPS, Judy Jackson will contact Rolf Heuer to see if a communication talk could be put on the agenda for the EPS.
8) Snowmass workshop, working group 6. Judy Jackson said that this offers the opportunity of two weeks to discuss communication issues. She would like to start work now on the agenda in order to make the best use of the meeting, and to ensure that there are occasions for the physicist members of the ILC communication group to meet with the communications professionals. The objective is to have one and a half days of meetings, and a plenary presentation on communication. Agenda items will include the newsletter, the web site, and a graphical style sheet for the ILC.