------------------------------ Minutes from Young Collaborator's Discussion ------------------------------- For some time, there has been the suggestion of an undercurrent of dissatisfaction on D0, particularly among the younger people. In order to address this, a meeting of a group of younger collaborators was organized on October 16, 1996, in which people were encouraged to air their opinions on a number of D0 issues with the following goals in mind: (1) To determine whether there was in fact a significant amount of unhappiness among the young experimenters who attended; (2) If so, whether there was any coherence to the effect, and, (3) To determine what, if any, common causes there were for for this disaffection. For lack of time, the discussion of solutions to the problems was deferred. The list of people who attended is shown below (the organizers are shown with a "*" by their names): Norm Amos *Drew Baden Jerry Blazey Amber Boehnlein Al Bross Bill Cobau Jim Cochran Bill Cooper *Marcel Demarteau Sarah Eno Terry Heuring John Hobbs Boaz Klima *Jon Kotcher Ron Lipton Sudhindra Mani Jianming Qian Srini Rajagopalan Kathy Streets Joey Thompson Mitch Wayne This meeting was a closed one: a finite (and exclusive) set of people, chosen by all three organizers, were invited to attend. The convenors felt that a small, closed session was the only way to provide the kind of environment in which people would feel secure enough to speak up openly, and would therefore be the most effective means of tapping the causal roots of dissatisfaction. Clearly, then, as with any exclusive group, there is the danger of a biased sample having been chosen. The names of the participants are given above, so that the reader of the conclusions below may weigh the results as he or she sees fit. It was generally agreed afterward that the meeting was very success- ful -- the discussion was useful and constructive, and a profession- al, collegial atmosphere was maintained throughout. It was found that there was a measurable amount of dissatisfaction among the young people assembled, and that there were some clear resonant causes. One of the positive results of the meeting was that we were each able to see that we were not alone in our sense of disaffection. It is clear that, in the future, some more formal means of addressing people's concerns and problems on the experiment would be a significant and, we feel, important step. We discuss below the conclusions from the meeting. This note has been passed by all of the participants for comment prior to its circulation. It should be noted that not all of the participants were acquainted with every topic discussed: some were familiar with the upgrade only, others exclusively with the analysis, and still others, in varying degrees, with both. Although there is not unanimous agreement on every topic -- there are, in fact, some issues on which a few individuals may have disagreed -- the group feels that the tone and content of the discussion has been adequately reflected in the notes below. By their very nature, these minutes reflect a critical examination of the experiment -- many of the significant positive aspects of our efforts on D0 are not discussed. We hope, therefore, that it will be read with the intent with which this process was initiated: that critical self-evaluation of our scientific and technical progress is a healthy and, indeed, vital part of our growth as a collaboration. We very much hope that this public airing of our concerns is taken seriously, and proves to be a useful spring- board for future deliberations. ========================================================================= Overall Comments on Management, with Focus on Upgrade ----------------------------------------------------- The general criticism of the two major management entities -- those of the spokespeople and the upgrade -- were that they are, respectively, too laissez-faire and too heavy-handed. Much of what follows is a reflection of this perception. Comments describing the upgrade management as too "hands-off" were very rare, if not non-existent. There were a number of instances, however, in which the spokespersons were felt to have over-stepped the bounds of their mandate. In this respect, the complaints related to them were a bit more subtle. We've tried, through specific examples, to accurately describe this dichotomy below. It is generally thought that the authority on the experiment -- whether it is over- or under-actively exercised -- is concentrated in the hands of too few of our members. In the experiment in general, but in the upgrade in particular, there is a feeling that authority is not delegated adequately. Decisions are being taken by a very limited number of people without the consensus of the whole group (or their appropriate representa- tives). In addition, it was felt that when the decision-making responsibility was shared, there was a tendency to do so primarily within a small circle of initiated individuals. Some people said that they were led to believe that they would be given some responsibility on the upgrade, only to find (too many months later) that the major responsibility for the project in question was placed under Fermilab control. Upgrade people from universities feel that they have been excluded in favor of engineers and/or lead technicians who answer to Fermilab management. It is felt by some of the university people that their design work has been revamped by laboratory personnel, sometimes without any direct consultation with the university parties involved. From our discussion, it appears that, whatever the underlying reasons, a rather large block of talent has been alienated from working on upgrade projects. University participation in the upgrade was considered to be further hampered by the MoU regulation. Although the MOU's are an important component of the overall funding of university groups, the flow of money is ultimately at the sole discretion of Fermilab. The perception is that peer review has more or less been replaced by a Fermilab review. In addition, Fermilab accounting is seen as unfavorable to universities, since only money coming from the D0 upgrade budget is considered. Costs covered by Fermilab's operating budget are not accounted for, making it appear to be cheaper to build detectors at Fermilab than at the universities. As a result, university groups feel short-cut. It was thought that the responsibilities and duties of management positions have changed over the course of the years, but that the new managers have not been allowed to grow into the managerial roles which the size of the project now demands. Because of the lack of proper reliance on these managers, projects tend to be micro-managed from above and, since the decisions tend to be made by one or a few individuals with alot on their plate, the decision-making process is often too slow. People are given responsibility, but no authority to act: all major decisions appear to have to go through upper management before they can be implemented, stripping the decision-making authority from the appointed middle- level managers of the projects. People feel that much of this could be alleviated if authority on the experiment were properly delegated. Analysis Issues --------------- Some people feel that much of the foundation work for analyses is simply deemed unimportant or skipped in favor of publication or putting out conference results; that there is an excessive push from above to get results out before they are ready, and that our reputation has suffered in the process. Overall, many people feel that the scientific standards on the experiment are too low; that our physics has been compromised by an unbalanced preoccupation with political, rather than scientific, concerns. There is the distinct impression that management has placed the priority on getting things out, rather than getting things right. A healthier balance between political/competitive concerns on the one hand, and the quality of our physics results on the other, was called for. More generally, it is felt that we have not dealt properly with laying the groundwork for analyses. The amount of attention that has been paid to understanding the detector, some particle ID issues, data/Monte Carlo comparisons, and some tracking problems, were all flagged as having been lacking in some serious, fundamental ways. It was stated that, four years into the analysis, we should be farther along with such things. Groups were set up by the spokes- people to deal with these issues at the Ann Arbor workshop, but it was felt that this was too late. Although establishing these groups was certainly a step forward, there was no motivation or incentive provided that would have encouraged people to help work in these groups. As far as could be determined, obtaining a critical mass of people needed to attack the problems was (inappropriately) left to the individuals who were asked to lead them. A major theme throughout much of the discussions -- both upgrade and physics analyses -- has been the perceived failure of the reward structure within the experiment. It should be emphasized that the focus of the discussion was on the reward structure internal to D0 only and not, for instance, the manner in which D0 supports its people for outside employment. It has been pointed out that our reward system has tended to ignore the significance of what are traditionally called "service tasks". It is felt that good physics output, particularly in a large collaboration, requires that a foundation of traditionally "low-profile" jobs be done properly, carefully, with enough resources committed to it, and that there exist a means of replacing people when others move on. Many are afraid of getting "stuck" in these positions, and are therefore reluctant to do such work on D0; they feel that their careers will severely suffer. It is felt that, in some fundamental and important ways, our output has suffered on D0 as a result of this. One of the first roles of management is to ensure that the quality of our physics does not suffer as a result of local variations in, to take but one example, the job market. Creating an environment where these tasks are perceived as the important and integral components of the analysis that they are, is one of the ways we could have helped the above from adversely impacting the physics. The value system established on D0, from this perspective, has been seriously lacking. Some people have asked for simple recognition and respect for the contributions they have made doing jobs like this. They feel as though they are clearly treated as second-class citizens by the management, even though their efforts have yielded results that are important for the scientific output of us all. It ought to be remembered that the evolution to large experiments has changed the rules of the game significantly: time scales for almost any project on D0 can take an entire post-doc's tenure. Those who tend to take their jobs seriously, and see them through to completion, can seriously suffer unless they take on the "right" project. In light of this, a more equal, collaborative approach needs to be more strongly encouraged from above, if the important ingredients are to be given the attention they need and deserve. Discussion of Collegiality -------------------------- This topic polarized the discussion as had no other. Here, the group was more or less of two minds: Mind 1: Some people feel that the lack of respect shown for fellow collaborators, and the heightened sense of territoriality that has been exhibited in some quarters, has severely damaged not only the collaborative atmosphere on D0, but the natural discourse about our physics methods and results. This group generally feels that this type of behavior is accentuated to an unacceptable degree on D0, and that its impact on the experiment is as important as that of the other topics listed above. The unwillingness of the spokespeople to decisively intervene here is seen as a serious shortcoming in their leadership. Mind 2: Another group felt that, while the issue had some validity, it was clearly of lesser importance than the other topics -- and, in fact, that it ought not be elevated to the status of the others by inclusion in these minutes. This group feels that this type of behavior exists on every experiment, and that part of collaborating on such a large experiment includes dealing with such occurrences as they happen -- that spokesperson inaction is not necessarily a serious deficiency in difficulties of this kind. We were unable to reach a consensus on either the relative significance of this issue, or on which of the two minds was more representative of the group's viewpoint. In the end, however, there was a collective call for more courteous, respectful treatment of fellow collaborators. Brief Conclusion ---------------- It was felt that more open discussions, guided by physics, along with a broader sharing of responsibilities would go a long way to addressing some of the root causes of dissatisfaction voiced by this group. Many young people feel that their voices are either not heard or ignored. Listening to, and heeding, some of our concerns -- perhaps even hearing some of us out on a regular basis -- would also help establish a more inclusive, cohesive collaborative spirit. ====================================================================