1. IB Report  The IB confirmed the three candidates for co-spokesperson who have been nominated and are willing to serve.  Dave Ayres  Maury Goodman  Stan Wojcicki  The election will be held by e-mail. The deadline for votes is four weeks from today. Each institution MUST submit a list of qualified electors by two weeks from today. If a list is not submitted votes from that institution are disqualified.  Maury Goodman raised the subject of the position of graduate students and young post-docs in MINOS, particularly since the position of graduate student coordinator has been abolished. There were concerns that the attendance at this meeting of young people was relatively light and that they were not volunteering to the MISC committee for external talks. Maury wondered whether the young people felt detached from the experiment. The old people at the meeting felt that this was probably not true but ……….

2. IB report  To address the issue it was resolved that;  Maury should ask the young people whether they were happy with the present situation  There would be a dinner meeting of the spokespeople with the students at the Ely meeting  The students should be encouraged to join and become representatives in the Fermilab student association  The final item was the discussion of the draft rules produced by the MAC2 committee for the production of approved data, papers and conference submissions and the MINOS author list  The draft has been circulated to everybody.  The plan is to collect comments and ideas from the IB discussion and from the rest of the collaboration and produce a revised version which can be approved at the Cambridge meeting. Please read and send me proposed amendments. Specific amendments please, not just vague “don’t like it”s

3. IB Report  The was a lengthy and sometimes discursive discussion of the draft. Apart from a few minor corrections the main points arising were;  Several people felt that the emphasis on both paper and result approval taking place at collaboration meetings was overly restrictive and would result in excessive delay. The draft makes allowance for approval at phone meetings in special cases. There was a fairly widespread opinion that the special might tend towards the norm  It was pointed out that the rules did not easily accommodate a blind analysis where collaboration approval would be required for the opening of the box and then again in fairly short order for the results revealed therein. The three month wait for the following collaboration meeting was considered to be too long. The committee had not considered this case but would attempt to write it into the rules for the next meeting.  There was much discussion of a number of other points in the document, particularly the composition and the necessity for the MAP committee, but after explanation of the intentions of the MAC2 committee and examination of the exact wording no particular changes were supported.