Summary of referees meeting Ian Bird LCG Project

Summary of referees’ meeting Ian Bird LCG Project Leader

Summary of points in closed session § Transition to SL 5 § “This ends up happening just when data is about to come. . . ” § ALICE: § “They assume MS at sites will be materialized. . . And they lack Tier 2 disk” § They are satisfied with the performance and ask sites to be more proactive” (CREAM) § ATLAS: § DB access – Frontier etc: “This is a bit surprising. . . To wake up on this at this stage of experiment. . . ” § SW perf improvement: “Sure there is still room for additional improvement” § LHCb: § CRSG support level of resources requested: “However CRSG report claims a significant change in LHCb computing model and recommends a review by LHCC for 2011” Ian. Bird@cern. ch 2

Closed session. . . § Interaction with CRSG: § “Experiments strongly desire that the final proposed numbers reflect their estimations and not those from the CRSG limited model” § “In some cases (ALICE) non-fully resolved discrepancies are still present” § “Future iterations, this review process should be organised in such a way that avoids a double referee process and unnecessary delays and maybe involves LHCC early on” Ian. Bird@cern. ch 3

Feedback § Next WLCG mini-review: § “Now I can confirm you we will cancel our meeting in November. ” § Scrutiny group and process: § “Concerning your comments on CRSG/LHCC coordination and the overall timeliness of the resources review process, we have discussed it in closed session. § We consider that we should suggest now CERN management LHC management to come up with an early and some conservative estimation of the total 2011 LHC running time. § This should be the first step towards establishing a well-defined and coherent review process. ” Have to consider various running scenarios. Ian. Bird@cern. ch 4