Dear Colleagues,

    I agree completely with Takeshi Matsuda in his (understated)  
comments.   We
are doing something that is highly non-traditional in high energy  
physics, and
sometimes tradition has good reasons for being traditional.

   Nevertheless, we on the 4th concept agree with and participate in  
the Roadmap
discussions and fully support them.

   The critical understanding has to be that the 2010 EDRs are  
"practice EDRs" that
represent the scientific and technological creativeness of the ILC  
detector community
that break the LEP standards by large factors, and this in turn will  
bring us support
and encouragement from the larger community.

   The notion that this might be a waste of time is not strong.  An  
engineered silicon
tracking system, TPC, or pixel vertex system, can sit on the table as  
a well understood
piece of a future experiment that will undergo the traditional LOI- 
TRD-experiment
route under the aegis of a laboratory and its director.

    The danger in this non-traditional approach is one of  
perception.   People in
science and government will come in time to see the two EDRs as the  
two approved
experiments, and only these two will receive funds and support.  The  
others will die
of neglect.   This is a tricky process, but in the end we all want  
the very best detectors.

   Chris Damerell has expressed similar opinions.   I do not know how  
to protect this
process from being misunderstood, but I do suspect that any activity  
remotely
resembling non-competitive approvals will be vigorously rejected by  
scientists
and governments, and all of us will suffer.

With Best Regards,
John Hauptman


On Apr 15, 2007, at 6:56 AM, Takeshi Matsuda wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> The roadmap proposed by the WWS co-chairs (*) seems to imply early  
> selection
> of detectors and collaborations at the ILC but is rather ambiguous,  
> thereby
> causing some authenticity issue and generating concern for openness to
> newcomers as has been pointed out.
>
> (*)
> http://ilcagenda.linearcollider.org/getFile.py/access? 
> contribId=65&sessionId
> =11&resId=1&materialId=slides&confId=1212
> http://ilcagenda.linearcollider.org/contributionDisplay.py? 
> contribId=4&sessi
> onId=13&confId=1390
>
> Below I personally try to formulate the bases of discussion on the  
> roadmap
> toward ILC experiments.
>
> There seem to be two basic approaches toward the approval and the
> construction of ILC detectors: (1) the traditional approach and (2)  
> a new
> approach explained below.
>
> The traditional approach goes as follows:
>
> (a)	Upon the establishment of an international body responsible for  
> the
> construction and operation of the ILC (hereafter called the ILC  
> Lab), the
> ILC Lab calls for LOIs for the two experiments thereat.
> (b)	The PAC, organized by the ILC Lab, reviews the LOIs. The ILC Lab
> approves two LOIs and asks the collaborations to submit their TDRs  
> in one or
> two years. The ILC Lab may also ask the collaborations to accept  
> new members
> for their TDR’s.
> (c)	This traditional approach is fair in the spirit that it is open  
> not
> only to the current small ILC detector community but also to the  
> rest of the
> world HEP community including those who are currently tied up with  
> the LHC
> experiments.
>
> In this traditional approach, physicists with intention for LOI  
> submission
> are supposed to self-organize a potential collaboration and carry  
> out their
> detector R&D and design study, so as to win the competition and to be
> prepared for the transition from the LOI to a TDR in the rather  
> short time.
> This was what happened in the large accelerator projects such as  
> LEP and
> LHC. Potential collaborations shall certainly need a working  
> schedule given
> by the ICFA-ILCSC, and also sufficient support, which matches the  
> schedule,
> for the detector R&D and design study.
>
> The new approach is to enable the early but fair selection of  
> detectors and
> collaborations taking into account practical needs to get sufficient
> supports for the ILC detector study, which in turn require  
> compliance to
> various funding systems of different countries:
>
> (a)	Prior to the establishment of the ILC Lab, which is unlikely to  
> take
> place at least for a few years from now, the ICFA-ILCSC, the only  
> existing
> international body with authority to play the role of the future  
> ILC Lab for
> the world HEP community, officially calls for LOIs for the two  
> experiments
> at the ILC. The submission of LOIs is due in 2008, which allows  
> sufficient
> preparation time for any potential collaboration.
> (b)	The ICFA-ILCSC selects a few (maybe two) LOIs, based on the
> recommendation by an international detector advisory group (IDAG),  
> and asks
> the collaborations to submit TDRs (of different levels if  
> necessary) with
> deadlines in accordance with the progress of the ILC project.
> (c)	As soon as the ILC Lab is established, the ILC Lab and its PAC
> replace the ICFA-ILCSC and the IDAG and continue the process.
>
> As with the original roadmap proposed by the WWS co-chairs, the  
> risks in
> this approach include (i) the detector selection to be made based  
> on most
> probably incomplete technical inputs from would-be-still-ongoing  
> R&Ds, (ii)
> foreseeable impacts by physics results form the LHC, (iii)  
> unexpected delay
> of the ILC project promotion, and (iv) possible difficulty in  
> coordination
> with funding agencies of different counties.
>
> This new approach, however, differs from the roadmap by the WWS co- 
> chairs
> that it is carried out by the ICFA-ILCSC, which is supposed to  
> represent the
> world HEP community and hence having authenticity and bearing  
> responsibility
> for the risks, and that it provides equal opportunity to any  
> potential users
> of the ILC.
>
>
> I personally prefer the traditional approach, and I believe it  
> would work
> alright also for the ILC. It is indeed unusual to decide on the  
> experiments
> before any sure indication of approval of the ILC project.  
> Nevertheless the
> new approach is also well-defined and practicable.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Takeshi MATSUDA
> IPNS/KEK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jim Brau
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:51 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: The Roadmap for ILC Detectors
>
> Dear Colleague,
>
> We think that it is important and useful to draw your attention
> on some recent issues about the future of detector activities on
> ILC. These issues were publicly debated during the ILC ACFA meeting
> in Beijing. The roadmap drafted by the WWS-OC and the reactions they
> have triggered in these debates were presented at ILCSC, the
> international body which is surveying the WWS activities.
> You will find an attached document sent to the co-Chairs of the
> WWS International Organizing Committee by the chairman of ILCSC.
> In this document ILCSC is urging us to keep pace with the
> accelerator schedule which means producing Engineering Design
> Reports for two detectors by 2010. To achieve this goal, the
> WWS co-chairs have started regular meetings with representatives
> of the four concepts and intend to present conclusions
> during LCWS07 in DESY.
>
> Best regards,
>
> The WWS co-chairs,
>
> Jim Brau, Hitoshi Yamamoto and Francois Richard
>
>
> --
> James E. Brau
> Physics Department
>    and Center for High Energy Physics
> 1274 University of Oregon
> Eugene, OR 97403-1274
> (541) 346-4766
>