1. 15/2/2006 LHCC Status Report J. Schukraft General News LHC progress & Schedule  continuing well, approx 2-4 month delay in some areas  NEW schedule: ‘closure of beam on 31 August’  aim for 50 pb -1 integrated L in 2007 (ca 1 month of running), reduced energy

2. 15/2/2006 LHCC Status Report J. Schukraft MB report MB, meetings on 20-04/13-12/21-06 (minutes on EDMS, accessible to all in ALICE)  Technical issues -> CF/LL  Physics issues: -> KS  Financial issues: -> HdG(Cathrine)  Computing: -> FC  Authorship policy, publications etc.. -> HAG  application of new Institutes: (primary Interest in offline/Grid computing)  ISS Bucharest, Romania under discussion since some time, clarifications with Romanian FA achieved  CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain + Univ. Santiago de Compostella  place/time of ‘the LHCC QM conference’ in 2009 (2007: India, 2008: US)

3. 15/2/2006 LHCC Status Report J. Schukraft US participation EMCAL project  TP to LHCC in April 2006, recommendation possibly next week  support structure in production, installation foreseen end August 2006  first SM can go ahead as ‘pre-production prototype’  schedule: ~ 50% for 2009 run, 100% for 2010 run MoU content  CORE contribution ~ 10 MCHF  Common Fund: 45 kCHFcash/Inst + emcal support structure (~ 1 MCHF)  EMCAL: ~ 1 MCHF/SM (= 8 MCHF for 8 SM’s)  M&O and computing proportional to PhD’s (~ 10% of ALICE for 50 PHD’s)  signed by LBL as ‘contract lab’ (Atlas/CMS: BNL/FNAL):  DOE represented in RRB Scope and timeline for US participation  EMCAL TP: 14 (13) new Institutes (ORNL not formally new); 68 people (~ 50 PhD ?)  ALICE-USA & DOE agree on list of preliminary applicants  presentation & discussion at June MB/CB  final list and vote in October CB (PhD’s included in M&O list for 2007)

5. 15/2/2006 LHCC Status Report J. Schukraft Other News Japan: several (small & big) new proposals submitted  PHOS proposal (Toru Sugitate, Hiroshima) has been approved  APD/preamps for all 5 PHOS modules  starting discussion to upgrade from associate to full membership (Tokyo, Hiroshima, Tsukuba) TRD: 5 M Euro requested for TRD completion from Germany  BMBF agreed (3.2 M), GSI agreed “in principle” (1.8 M requested) Ongoing:  Turkey, Pakistan, Korea, Brazil Significant progress over the last ~ 6 months: China(PHOS), USA(EMCAL), Germany(TRD), Japan(PHOS)

6. 15/2/2006 LHCC Status Report J. Schukraft ALICE Constitution I MoU will expire end 2007 => need to adapt the constitution  presented at last CB New Members of the Collaboration  replace  For Institutes joining the Collaboration after the submission of the Memorandum of Understanding, an appropriate financial contribution to the ALICE Common Fund, to be fixed by the CB, will in general be required.  by  For Institutes joining the Collaboration, an appropriate contribution, including a minimum cash contribution, will in general be required.

7. 15/2/2006 LHCC Status Report J. Schukraft ALICE Constitution II CB voting rights  replace:  Each Institute that contributes in cash to the Common Fund, as outlined in the ALICE Memorandum of Understanding, has one vote in the CB. Institutes which, as an exceptional measure, have been dispensed by the CB from paying the annual cash contribution to the Common Fund, do not vote.  by:  Each Institute with a minimum of 3 Members (‘scientific staff holding PhD or equivalent qualifications’), as defined in the Memorandum of Understanding for Maintenance and Operations (CERN-RRB-2002-034), has one vote in the CB. Institutes from the same country may combine and if together they pass the threshold of 3 Members as defined above, they will have one vote. The CB may grant exceptions to this rule in motivated cases. The list of PhD or equivalent staff is established annually prior to the fall RRB, with effective date September 1, and is valid for the following calendar year.  NB: All Institute will have a representative in the CB, but not all will be able to vote (~ today)  NB: Institutes not paying M&O CAN be excluded from voting (and signing papers)  Possible cases for exceptions (if there is a very good reason):  combination of Institutes from DIFFERENT countries  should each country have at least one vote ??  other cases currently not foreseen

8. 15/2/2006 LHCC Status Report J. Schukraft ALICE Constitution III Annex 1, which defines MB  DAQ/Trigger/HLT representation:  ‘De Facto’ both DAQ and HLT projects are permanently invited since about end 2003. Trigger is currently not represented in MB.  During & after CB in Utrecht (mid 2005), suggestion was made to include Trigger project in MB.  replace:  The following projects are represented by their Project Leaders: ITS, TPC, TOF, TRD, PHOS and Muon Arm. The DAQ, Trigger and HLT projects are represented by one person, appointed by consensus, the Offline project is represented by the Offline Co- ordinator. The remaining detectors are represented by one of their Project Leaders, appointed by consensus.  by:  The following projects are represented by their Project Leaders: ITS, TPC, TOF, TRD, PHOS, Muon Arm, DAQ, Trigger and HLT. The Offline project is represented by the Offline Co-ordinator. The remaining detectors are represented by one of their Project Leaders, appointed by consensus.

9. 15/2/2006 LHCC Status Report J. Schukraft Endorsements New ‘rotating Deputy Spokesperson’ 2007/2008  to replace HAG (mandate ends end 2006) for 2 years  2 excellent candidates, very difficult to choose !  after extensive consultation with many, slight but significant preference for F. Antinori (Padova) Coordinators (mandates expire summer 2006) (time book keeping by HdG)  Deputy TC: Chris nominates Lars Leistam until mid 2008 (end of TC mandate)  Resource Coordinator: JS nominates H de Groot for 3 years (until mid 2009)  Physics Coordinator: JS nominates K. Safarik for 3 years (until mid 2009)  mandate: max 3 years, renewable once