MCNet Discussion Page

The plan is to use this page to collect together all the documents we need to refer to and to list outstanding issues and tick them off as they are dealt with.

ACTION points are on MHS: Mike Seymour, LL: Leif Lonnblad, PR: Peter Richardson, SG: Stefan Gieseke, JMB: Jon Butterworth and FK: Frank Krauss

Some brief items arising from the phone discussion of May 9th (not complete minutes):

• Frank's move from Dresden to Durham. The formal requirements from the EU are that Dresden write a letter confirming that they are withdrawing from the project and that the rest of us confirm (ultimately by signing the contract that contains the Description of Work) that we are happy with the change of responsibilities. The practical consequences of the move are fairly straightforward: all Dresden tasks and manpower should be moved to Durham; we have one less team and one less team leader; since Durham will be by far the largest team (at least in terms of tasks and spend) it may be appropriate for them to have a deputy team manager; since Peter is currently there, he should be the team leader at least during the contract negotiation and start-up phases, with Frank as deputy; since Frank is no longer a team leader, he should be on the advisory committee (like Torbjorn and Bryan) where he could take special responsibility for ensuring that all our programs are well targeted to Less Favoured Regions and New Member States. ACTION ON FK: obtain the letter mentioned above.
• joint studentships: should be registered for a PhD at one institution, where the supervisor will take formal responsibility for the completion of their PhD. They will start their studies there, and complete the formal requirements of the first year. The EU rules clearly state that only up to 30% of the total period of recruitment can be spent on secondment elsewhere. Therefore the second university should formally employ them, even while they are registered at and paying fees to the first. ACTION ON PR/JMB/SG: investigate whether this is possible in practice. If it is not, the next best solution would be to limit the stay at the second university to a maximum period of 10 months within the three years, but this is clear not optimal.
• dates for Annual Schools: we wrote in the proposal that the Annual Schools would rotate around the teams in conjunction with the appointed postdocs. Specifically Dresden (therefore Durham), Lund, Durham and Karlsruhe. We also specified that they would take place in the summer. This could be true for subsequent years, but there is a worry that in the first year (2007) not many experimental students would be available for a school, and of the ones that are, the Hadron Collider School to be held at CERN may saturate the market. Therefore we propose that the first school be held in Durham around Easter 2007. We also propose that the second school to be organized by the Durham team actually be held in one of the other institutions of the team: Cambridge or, depending on Mike's position by then, Manchester.
• additional justification has been requested for the computers and computing costs. ACTIONS ON: MHS: get clarification on exactly what is being asked for; PR: to write it.
• license agreement. We wrote in our proposal that one of the outcomes of the network would be a united front on licensing policy. There is a concern that by releasing versions of our programs before this has happened we may endanger our rights or freedom to distribute it in future. MHS proposes that a very simple form of words be agreed now as an interim measure before the final agreement has been reached, for inclusion with all programs that do not already have a stronger statement of their own. Something along the lines of: A formal license agreement for this program is currently under discussion. Until this is available its use is governed by the following statement: "I agree not to use or redistribute this program in any way that infringes on the authors' rights to control its use or limits their freedom to impose a license agreement in future. I accept their right to withdraw its use or place limitations on its use at any time." If you disagree with this statement please delete all copies of the program and cease its use. I pretty much made this up off the top of my head, so it can obviously be discussed and improved, but the whole point of having an interim agreement is not to spend ages discussing it, as we surely will for the final agreement.

Here are all of the documents I have received from the EU. Note in particular that all team leaders should have the Guidance Notes to hand when they fill in the Contract Preparation Forms with the editing tool!

• 035606-2-MCnet.pdf: Evaluation Summary Report
• FrameworkforNegotiation_MCNET.doc: Framework for Negotiation
• RTN_Neg_Gudlnes_May_06FinalVersionforFP6_2005_Mob_1forCORDIS1Display.pdf: Negotiation Guidance Notes
• DOCTemplateAnnexI.doc: Template for Annex I
• CPFEditor.xlt: Contract Preparation Form editing tool
• Readme20506.txt: Readme file for the CPF editing tool

As I read through the notes myself, I'm making a few random comments that may be relevant to us, need discussing further, etc:

• Several formal administrative steps can be carried out in paralel with the negotiation of the Dsecription of Work and in order to save time we recommend that the following approach be taken by the co-ordinator:
  • To immediately request legal documents from the network participants
  • To circulate A2 and A4a Contract Preparation Forms
  • Others only relevant inside CERN, e.g. its bank account details
• Start of the Contract and start of the project. Contrary to what I understood from the handbook, Section 2.4 seems to state fairly clearly that no expenditure can take place before the start date of the project. In the light of this, we need to rediscuss the start date. In particular, if the first postdoc position should start on the first day of the project, we (which presumably means Durham) have to finance it out of our own funds.