FOCUS-like bodies Summary

1. FOCUS-like bodies Summary Collected from the information provided about CC-IN2P3, CNAF/ComCalc-INFN, CERN, DESY, FNAL,RAL-PPARC Just few basic points… short

2. “Laboratory” and “Computing Centre” • In my small sample (6 items) two different cathegories come out clearly • Laboratory : CERN, DESY, FNAL • Computing Centre: CC-IN2P3, CNAF-INFN,RAL-PPARC • CC’s are also support for sub-units on a geographic wide area, while Lab’s have as primary focus specific local activities with a strong on site community • still some difference is more of quantity than of quality • The difference however reflects on the bodies set up

3. “Coordination of informatics” • These words, taken from D. Langlin’s report describe well one of the functions of CC-IN2P3 and CNAF/ “Computing +Network Committee” for RAL-PPARC see next slide: lot of similarity... • 18 IN2P3 sites in France and 23 INFN sites have common needs, need frequent exchanges and share national resources (funding etc…). Therefore a “coordination point” is needed • For the technical side CC-IN2P3 in Lyon, CNAF in Bologna provide this function • For the technological choices and resource side INFN has Commissione Calcolo e Reti with 1 representative for each site. • In France the COS “Strategic Orientation Committee”, with major user representatives together with relevant internal and external Directors discusses the strategy issues; resource sharing and other ordinary matters are discussed in 2 technical commitees, one with site representation while the other has experiment representation. • National “informatic days” organized every 12 or 18 months are also a common feature of INFN and IN2P3

4. RAL-PPARC(from S.Lloyd this morning) • The PPARC Computing Committee is CNAP ( Computing + Network Advisory Panel) changing emphasis now • overseeing of the RAL Central Facilities (will be done by GridPP) • advice on strategic issues and resources sharing • Composition: chairs of sub-committee • Networking • Data Store • System managers of the ~16 sites • User advisory committee: representative(s) of all the experiments • Other main changes coming: • Inclusion of Astronomy • More on strategy, less on ordinary administration

5. Users and Services • The need for good contact between Users and Services is common to all my 6 cases • User meeting at CC-IN2P3 (some with free participation, some with a fixed number of lab’s representatives) Note the geographical basis. • Technical and Overview Board at CNAF: respectively 2 and 1 representatives for each experiment agreed at Tier1. Project basis • OB charged also with experiment sharing of CNAF resources • CUC (Computer User Committee) and CRB (Computing Review Board) at DESY. • CUC is open, with experiment, accellerator etc. representatives participating • CRB set up long term DESY strategy: organizes its work generating and overseeing projects (similar to LCG and old LCB) which have internal and external referees. The members are empowered representatives of the groups which own IT manpower resources

6. Users and Services (2) • The large experiments at FNAL have dedicated departments within the Computing Division, each with his own budget. • User executive Committee, not just for Computing • For major decisions strategy meetings organized on ad hoc basis • A special WG for Run2 with committees for the various areas and weekly working meetings • At CERN Focus and LCG share now the charge of assuring good contact between Users and Services, in different way for LHC experiments (Focus mandate to be revised at end 2002, after LCG “consolidated” start) • Cocotime takes care of the allocation of resources, separate body