[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[SB2009-20] Announcement: ILC-GDE AAP Review January 2010



Dear Colleagues,

 

The project managers would like to announce

 

The Second ILC – GDE Accelerator Advisory Panel Review.  

 

The Review will focus on the Proposal for the ILC Re-baseline for Technical Design Phase 2

 

It will be held at Oxford University, in the Physics Department,  on 6th – 8th January, 2010.

 

 Background

 

The agenda will include presentations on the proposed new baseline design, including responses to preliminary inquiries from the Panel. PRIMARY AUTHORS of the SB2009 Proposal Document and their immediate support team will be called upon to prepare and deliver presentations are very strongly encouraged to attend. A primary goal is to maximize our interaction with the panel, so your presence is important.

 

The Review itself is not a closed meeting, but we expect the Panel to have closed sessions as is customary. Meeting room space is limited, so:  Please let us  know as soon as possible if you plan to attend. (Also copy Maxine Hronek).

 

Agenda

 

The Review Agenda will cover all aspects of the Proposal for the new baseline, ‘SB2009’. We do not intend to include a review of ongoing technical R & D activities. These will be the subject of a subsequent review.

 

From its inception, the Accelerator Advisory Panel was intended to be tightly linked to the Project Team. Many of the Panel’s members have strong ties within the community and they know the specifics of the design, (and the R & D that support it), very well.

 

We expect the Panel to have read and discussed our Proposal Document (due to be completed 18th December, 2009) and legacy material from Accelerator Design and Integration Meetings and from GDE Plenary meetings. As part of their process, and following roughly in the steps that led to the first review in April of this year, we expect to receive a critique of the Proposal, including questions and comments. Because of this, presentations at the upcoming review should not simply repeat the material in our Proposal, but should focus on their input.

 

 

 

Meeting logistics and related details to be sent by Maxine Hronek.

 

As always, we look forward to your questions, comments and suggestions.

 

Best regards,

Nick and Akira and Marc