1. Steven Goldfarb LCG RTAG 12 CERN – 1 June 2004 LCG RTAG 12: Collaborative Tools Interim Report

2. CERN - 29 Apr 2004S. Goldfarb, University of Michigan Slide 2 Organization  Web site: http://cern.ch/muondoc/rtag12http://cern.ch/muondoc/rtag12  Archived Mailing List: project-lcg-rtag-collab@cern.chproject-lcg-rtag-collab@cern.ch  List of Members: http://cern.ch/muondoc/rtag12/Membershttp://cern.ch/muondoc/rtag12/Members  Meeting Schedule: http://cern.ch/muondoc/rtag12/Meetingshttp://cern.ch/muondoc/rtag12/Meetings Meetings  Weekly Meetings Wed 16:00-18:00 in 513-1-024 (VRVS)  First Meeting was March 31  Presentations Thus Far (backwards chronologically): Atlas Feedback (19-may-2004) - S. Goldfarb Why did the EU FR6 Bid Fail to Run? (12-may-2004) - R. Jones Overview of Videoconferencing at CERN (05-may-2004) - C. Isnard Collaborative Scenario (28-apr-2004) - T. Pace VC in HEP (Besides VRVS) (28-apr-2004) - C. Helft VRVS Research Roadmap (21-apr-2004) - Ph. Galvez Introductory Comments (31-mar-2004)- S. Goldfarb Proposal to PEB for RTAG (12-jan-2004) - D. Barberis RTAG 12 Activities

3. CERN - 29 Apr 2004S. Goldfarb, University of Michigan Slide 3 Composition of RTAG 12 ParticipantInstituteRepresenting Peter HristovCERN-PH/AIPAlice Steven Goldfarb (chair)University of MichiganAtlas Roger JonesLancaster UniversityAtlas Bolek WyslouchMITCMS Ian McArthurUniversity of OxfordLHCb Gerhard RavenNIKHEFLHCb Tony DoyleUniversity of GlasgowGridPP Philippe GalvezCalTechVRVS Christian HelftLAL - IN2P3 (Orsay)HTASC-CSMM Alberto PaceCERN-IT/IS David FosterCERN-IT/CS Mick StorrCERN-HR/PMDTraining Les Robertson (ex-officio)CERN-IT/DILCG-PEB

4. CERN - 29 Apr 2004S. Goldfarb, University of Michigan Slide 4 LHC Needs  The LHC is the IDEAL Example of the Case for Collaborative Tools Large, Diverse, Dispersed Collaborations Common Project Requiring Close Coordination Long Duration: Need for Maintenance, Training  The Demands for Collaborative Tools are Growing Quickly Testing, Commissioning of Detectors Software Development, Grid Use  Super Brief Summary of Meeting Room Needs Quality Videoconferencing in Every Meeting Room at CERN Complementary / Backup System of Phone Conferencing High Resolution Document Sharing (Read Only) Easy-To-Use (Uniform) Systems CERN-based Service  Technical Support (Potentially for Every Meeting)  R & D (Technical Assessment) Preliminary Findings

5. CERN - 29 Apr 2004S. Goldfarb, University of Michigan Slide 5 CERN Status  Minimal Maintenance Mode Since 2000 Gradual Aging of Existing Facilities New Facilities Only for Budget Codes Each Room Different, Maintenance Stretched Thin  Minimal Assessment of QA/QC Audio Quality Very Bad in Some Cases Many Small Items Easily Fixed  No Clear Central Planning Atlas, CMS paying for some facilities No Clear “Ownership” of Facilities No R & D Lack of Coordination within CERN (TS e.g.) Lack of Coordination with Other Institutes, Working Groups Preliminary Findings

6. CERN - 29 Apr 2004S. Goldfarb, University of Michigan Slide 6 Costs  Inaction by CERN, Collaborations Expensive Lost Time (Very Expensive) Lack of Coordination (Hidden Costs) Inability of Some Collaborators to Participate (Invaluable) Travel? (Perhaps - Bad Argument) Preliminary Findings

7. CERN - 29 Apr 2004S. Goldfarb, University of Michigan Slide 7 Organizational Video conferencing Facilities Phone Conferencing Facilities Other Collaborative Tools Users Preliminary Recommendations

8. CERN - 29 Apr 2004S. Goldfarb, University of Michigan Slide 8 CERN Infrastructure  All meeting rooms set up for video conferencing Preferably in a uniform manner Simplification of room set-up Training if necessary  A Dedicated Service providing Meeting support (set-up at least) Maintenance of rooms  Coordination providing Continual assessment of technologies Continual assessment of LHC needs Recommendations for equipping of room Long-term planning and vision Preliminary Recommendations

9. CERN - 29 Apr 2004S. Goldfarb, University of Michigan Slide 9 Users  Adequate set-up time  Provision of meeting operator Range from participant (VRVS) Technician (Access Grid)  Training sessions? Preliminary Recommendations

10. CERN - 29 Apr 2004S. Goldfarb, University of Michigan Slide 10 Videoconferencing  ESnet vs. VRVS No choice of one over the other Compatibility with both  Microsoft Approach to Everything  Access Grid Technology Assessment

11. CERN - 29 Apr 2004S. Goldfarb, University of Michigan Slide 11 Discussed or Discussing  Organization, Coordination  CERN Facilities  Videoconferencing Tools and Facilities H323, VIC, VAT, etc. ESnet, VRVS  Phone Conferencing Facilities  Other Activities RCWG, HTASC - CSMM Discussion Still Needed  Desktop Environments  Training, Lecture Archival  Immersive Environments, Application Sharing, Grid Integration, etc. Time Scale?  End June, Early July Status of RTAG 12