---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Usha Mallik <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: News from Santa-Cruz Linear Collider Retreat


I apologize if you happen to get this e-mail twice, but, apparently it
did not reach quite a few people the first time when I sent it on July
3rd.

Usha
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


At the UCSC Linear Collider Retreat (June 27-30) very fruitful discussions
took place between the funding agencies, the Linear Collider steering group,
the Cornell based NSF Consortium, the DOE-based LCRD proposal co-ordinators
the American LC Working group (ALCPG) leaders, the American working group
leaders of Linear Collider Accelerator Technology (AWGLCAT), and all the
interested participants. As a result, a reasonable plan of how to proceed
emerged.


Discussion Summary for Submission Procedure for Linear Collider R&D
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal by the DOE-supported Groups:
------------------------------------

The DOE-supported groups and the NSF-supported groups participating
in the LC R&D proposal will be funded by the two agencies separately.
DOE expects to find $400K and $500K new money for the accelerator and the
Detector parts, respectively, in FY03.

Cornell/NSF consortium will submit a proposal to NSF for both the
accelerator and the detector R&D's for next three years.

The DOE LC R&D groups also plan to submit a proposal covering both the
accelerator and the detector R&D asking for only FY03 funding but with
a comprehensive description of the specific R&D project with plans for
future years, if it is expected to be a multi-year project.

The (DOE) proposal will contain two parts, an accelerator part and a detector
part, each fairly complete by itself. Each part will be comprised of the
sub-component R&D's consisting of individual project description from
individual proponent (sub-proposal) in the case of the detector R&D, or
as appropriate, in the case of accelerator R&D.

To have all of the R&D sub-proposals judged from a uniform vantage point, the
steering group is setting up two review committees, one for the detector
R&D and another for the accelerator R&D. The review committees will review
each individual project contained in the DOE LC R&D proposal as well as
those in the NSF consortium proposal. The committees are likely to include
some international experts as reviewers. The committee will prioritize
and will comment on each individual R&D sub-proposal.

The community as well as the steering group wanted to submit both proposals
simultaneously to the review panels so that the entire US program of LC R&D
could be reviewed at the same time.

Because of rigid deadlines of NSF (after introducing as much delay as
possible Goldberg could allow), the Cornell group needs to get their proposal
reviewed by the review panel by Sept. 15.
This timing is driving the proposal described below.

The actual funding for DOE groups whose sub-proposals are judged to be
important and of high priority for LC will occur as supplements to their
existing grants. The final decision for funding will rest with the
individual DOE monitor for the institution in question.

ABOUT the PROPOSAL and SCHEDULE:

August 1:
          Each proponent of an R&D should submit an EOI to the DOE-based
          LCRD proposal co-ordinators via George Gollin ([log in to unmask]).
          It will be shared by the coordinators and the ALCPG, and, will
          be immediately posted on the web at: www.uiuc.edu/LCRD/

          The EOI should be between 1.5 and 2.5 pages and should contain:

  ()      Proposed R&D Title
  ()      Names of Institutions and Participants (with contact person clearly
          indicated; should also include the labs and the lab-collaborators)
  ()      An overview of the proposed project
  ()      The work intended to be performed, deliverables etc. (also mention
          the resources available)
  ()      Should include future plans if the project is expected to last more
          than one year.
  ()      An initial budget

          [See Examples on the web page]

          The DOE LCRD proposal co-ordinators and ALCPG will review the
          sub-proposals in the context of the entirety of the proposal
          and all of the sub-proposals, aiming at a strong overall cohesive
          proposal, suggesting changes of emphasis or budget, and
          possibly suggestions of joining forces of two or more proponents
          where all could benefit. They will follow the guidelines of the
          international LC R&D white paper:
          http://blueox.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/LC/ALCPG/

August 9- 11
          Advice transmitted to the contact person of each sub-proposal.

August 11-Sept 3
          The proponents complete their sub-proposal (five pages maximum)
          taking the guidance into consideration. The EOI can form the major
          part of the proposal.
          The DOE LCRD co-ordinators write the introduction, overview for
          each section and whatever else is necessary to include the
          the individual sub-proposals into a coherent piece of document.
          The appendix is likely to include a copy of the international
          white paper.
          (A draft of the proposal based on the individual EOI's should
          be available on the web page for the everyone's inspection, and
          will be updated on a timely basis. Please send suggestions and
          comments as an active participant in the process.)
September 3
          Individual sub-proposals received by the DOE LCRD co-ordinators.
September 6
          The complete proposal submitted to the Steering group/Review
          committees.
September 6-15
          Any possible questions from Review Panels answered.
September 15
          Reviews and Suggestions received and shared with the proponents.

Apparently, the proposal gets checked by the Review panel after the
suggestions are incorporated, possibly to check the integrity of the
proposal (this is a very recent change, and will likely change the Sept 15
date for Cornell as it presently stands). It is worth noting that the
proposal that is submitted to the review committees by September 6 is
the final version, no major modifications can be made on the sub-proposals.

Important: The procedure is being setup as we all (the steering group, the
funding agencies, the working group leaders and co-ordinators) proceed.
Therefore quite a few things are in flux. We will keep you informed of any
such change as we find out.

The Time-line is interdependent and therefore VERY IMPORTANT to adhere to.
So please follow the guideline of the dates.

sincerely,

The DOE-based LCRD proposal co-ordinators:
Dan Amidei, George Gollin, John Jaros, Andreas Kronfeld and Usha Mallik