FOCUS report to the DTF Marco Cattaneo Borrowing heavily from Chairman’s reports to

1. FOCUS report to the DTF Marco Cattaneo Borrowing heavily from Chairman’s reports to HEPCCC (Nov. ‘01) and FOCUS (Dec. ‘01) • 2001 Mandate and Membership • Overview of “FOCUS process” • Review of topics in 2001 • FOCUS – future 1

2. FOCUS – Mandate (pre 2002) • FOCUS is an acronym for Forum On Computing: Users and Services • Taken from Minutes of 1st FOCUS Meeting (14 Mar. ‘96), which in turn was quoted from DG’s letter to Manuel Delfino, Feb. 6, 1996:- • “FOCUS will confront the needs of the CERN experiments and the present and planned evolution of CERN computing services with a time window extending roughly two years into the future.” • The Minutes added:- • “The mandate will be implemented by enhancing the communication between ‘consumers’ and ‘service providers’ of CERN computing in order to arrive at clear definitions of needs and of services. Minutes addition stresses the ‘service’ aspect 2

3. FOCUS-centric view … pre-LHC HEPCCC ACCU? Report upwards Receive advice FOCUS EP Forum Desktop Forum Cross- secretaries Swap agenda items Report to Focus Cocotime LCB 3

4. Directors Hans Falk Hoffmann Jurgen May Roger Cashmore-attendance IT Representatives Jaques Altabar Pal Anderssen Manuel Delfino Frederic Hemmer David Jacobs Juergen Knobloch Miguel Marquina Harry Renshall Les Robertson Jamie Shiers Alan Silverman (Desk Top Forum) Wolfgang Von Ruden IT Members with Experimental Contact David Asbury ATLAS Jean-Phillippe Baud ALICE Tony Cass LHCb Andreas Pfeiffer CMS Experimental Representatives Jaques Boucrot ALEPH/OPERA Marco Cattaneo (sec) LHCb Maria Kienzle L3 Begigno Gobbo COMPASS Ryszard Gokieli DELPHI Alan Grant NOMAD/HARP Paul Jeffreys (chair) Vincenzo Innocente CMS Livio Mapelli ATLAS Norman McCubbin ATLAS Helge Meinhard CHORUS Alan Norton NA48 Stephen O’Neale OPAL Martti Pimia CMS Karel Safarik ALICE Andres Sandoval NA49 Pierre Vande Vyvre ALICE Other Michael Ernst (DESY) External Francois Etienne External Wolfgang Lerche Theory Mirco Mazzucato LCB Enzo Valente External Ioana Videau EP Div./deputy FOCUS Membership 2001 4

5. FOCUS – Model of operation • Ideally: • Well researched topic, users consulted, groundwork done • Active user participation in process (sometimes through Work Groups), preferably individual taking ownership of issue, reviewing, working with members of IT • Then … brought before the FOCUS committee • Users feel correctly represented • Solution presented which they can buy into • IT division - part of the plans • Request being made to IT viable, and costed • Directors can go away • Understanding and appreciating issue! • Resource implications well defined • Able to convince directorate that correct decision • Hard to realize in practice, challenge is to ensure rewarding meeting for all attendees • Often process has to be iterative 5

6. Realistic FOCUS life-cycle • Identify issue to be addressed (generally by IT – sometimes by users) • Present the issue to FOCUS • Often the general future direction is known, but there are too many uncertainties to make a decision, and furthermore a certain amount of ‘negotiation’ and adjustment is needed • Commission User review of issue • (The most difficult aspect of the whole exercise is to find a User(s) who will represent the whole community) • Ask IT to present technical possibilities and recommendations • May require waiting for new technologies to develop • FOCUS listens to Users and IT proposals and draws conclusions • Iterate! • FOCUS draws to conclusion, and oversees the implementation • FOCUS monitors progress in implementation, (and finally its termination!) 6

7. Review of topics considered in 2001 • Categorise topics: • Policy to be derived or required • Review • Informational • Also .. Update on IT activities (not included below) • and: • IT - led • User (FOCUS) led • Some items not uniquely defined, indeed migrate from one category to another... 7

8. FOCUS Topics 2001 – Policy(1) • Impact of LHC Computing Review and FOCUS ToR Continuing from 2000… Conclusion of LHC Computing Review Bethke May Re-definition of role of FOCUS Hoffmann June Proposed new FOCUS ToR Chair et al Nov Confirmation of new ToR Committee Dec Return to this later.. 8

9. Public Platforms/RISC Decommissioning Continuing from 2000… LEP exptal requ. User May Future LEP support IT May LEP migration LINUX User May LINUX service defn. IT Jun SUNDEV user f.b User Nov SUNDEV IT plans ITNov Review compilers IT Dec Storage Continuing from 2000… Castor Update ITApr Castor User Experience UserNov Castor Migration ITNov Castor Charging policy ITNov Windows 2000 Status IT Dec Common Login/Password CLASP overview/prop. IT May FOCUS Topics 2001 – Policy(2) 9

10. Reports from running expts CHORUS User Jun NA48 User Nov NA49 User Nov HARP User Nov COMPASS User Nov Security Update IT * External Network Services Review IT Dec CVS Expert requirements User May File Sharing User Requirements User Jun Web standards IT Jun Cocotime Summary of round User Dec FOCUS Topics 2001 - Review 10

11. Data Grid Project Overview of WP4 IT Jun Overview of WP8 User Jun Computing at DESY Review User Dec FOCUS Topics 2001 - Informational 11

12. Overview of topics in 2001 • Approximate split:- • 60% (60% in 2000) Policy • Dominated by determination of platform policy and storage • 30% (25%) Review --> Policy • Dominated by storage issues within experimental context • 10% (15%)Informational 12

13. Review of main policy themes • Addressing key future ‘Services’ • Main policy themes this year: • Public platforms, RISC decommissioning, LINUX service, SUNDEV • Storage • Both were started in 2000 • Both needed many iterations • Real advantages of FOCUS • Very wide user base represented • Forum for services to be discussed by Users and IT  FOCUS plays important role in facilitating iterative evaluation and development, recording steps in the process, and making decisions formal 13

14. Attempts made to improve process • Intentions, not always practice! • Always have 4 agendas ahead (differing degrees of detail) • Have at least three weeks notice of full agenda before a meeting, and as many talks available in advance of the meeting as possible 14

15. Looking Forward 15

16. FOCUS from 2002 • The FOCUS Project life-cycle described earlier has been applied to itself ---to explore and develop a revised FOCUS remit! • Process started in 2000 • 4 bites at the cherry in 2001 • Conclusions • Important role that FOCUS plays, as borne out through activities in 2001, is “overseeing” services provided by IT for experiments • Conception of project/service • Establishing User requirements • Agreeing definition of service after suitable investigation • Developing project to point of offering a service • Implementation of service • Operating service • … and finally, concluding the service • Future FOCUS operation:- • Reduced scope • Reduction in membership? • Reconsider role and operation of the committee at the end of 2002 16

17. New FOCUS Mandate • Background: • FOCUS’s mandate is changed following the formation of the LHC Computing Grid Project Structure. • Working assumptions made to determine the revised mandate: a. FOCUS’s main role is to look at the implementation, defining, running, and ultimately phasing out of services (h/w and s/w); b. As previously, it is primarily concerned with IT services run on the CERN site; c. COCOTIME maintains control over resources; d. HEPCCC retains responsibility for providing ‘a forum in which the Directors responsible for Computing at the major European Institutes … are able to discuss the organisation, co-ordination and optimisation of computing in terms both of money and personnel’.” 17

18. FOCUS ToR version 2.2 • FOCUS will normally meet four times a year as a forum for bringing together CERN IT providers and users to define and oversee:- the commissioning, operation, prioritisation and decommissioning of services; the services concerned are primarily those on the CERN site; • it facilitates the agreement of clear definitions of service requirement and provision, and monitors quality of delivery; • FOCUS concentrates on generic IT activities which have wider relevance than the LHC experiments alone, relate to non-LHC experiments, or disseminate developments from the LHC experiments to other areas; • FOCUS reports to the Research Sector Management, and in particular to the Director for Technology Transfer and Scientific Computing; • FOCUS plans and operates across a medium range timescale, typically two years; • its mandate and ToR will be reconsidered at the end of 2002.” 18

19. Proposed new membership • Directors: • 2+1 (unchanged) • IT • Division leader and deputies, group leaders: 1+2+9 (was 12) • No IT/Experiment contacts (was 4) • Experiments • EP deputy division leader • Chair, plus one member per experiment 1+13 (was 1+16) • Plus “alternate members in attendance” for LHC expts. • Others • External members: 2++ (was 3+LCB) • Theory + Accelerator sector reps: 2 (was ~0) • To be discussed at meeting tomorrow. 19

20. Conclusions • FOCUS has been a useful forum, good progress made in 2001, policy established, and recorded • The themes covered in 2001, as summarised here, show the strong emphasis on overseeing services • FOCUS will need to evolve to fit around the new LHC Structure • This will lead to reduced scope (and reduced membership?) • The new ToR specify the new emphases for FOCUS • It will concentrate on overseeing generic services, supplied by IT for the experiments • Wide representation will continue to be important • There is strong and wide support for FOCUS continuing in this form • Its mandate and ToR will be reviewed at the end of 2002 20

21. Good Luck tonew chair-person and secretary!! 21