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

[Ext-GDE-103] Params/ML Change Request - Dec.1, 2007 (CCR#24)



Dear Colleagues,

I am announcing that CCB has received a change request for the Parameter
and the Main Linac (ML) sections of GDE/ILC BCD from T.Raubenheimer,
who is acting on behalf of the Executive Committee (EC) and the Main Linac
Area System leaders.

This change request (CCR#24) represents a proposal which is motivated
by cost reductions. The structural contents of CCR#24 closely resembles 
those of CCR#20, whose approval the CCB had recommended against in late
November. However, CCR#24 introduces :

- Several critical revisions to the ILC main parameters, in an attempt
  to restore the logical self-consistency, and
- Numerous clarifications of the contents of CCR#20a, #20b and #20c,
  (which are now relabeled as CCR#24a, #24b and #24c),

and seeks to achieve the cost reduction which is much needed in 
the requester's opinion in a manner less invasive than some others with 
similar cost savings.

CCB received the first letter expressing the intention of CCR#24 from
Raubenheimer on December 18, 2006. Tor's memo is posted as

   http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=bcd_history&cache=cache&media=bcd:ccr24_proposal.pdf

CCB received proposed replacement texts for the Parameter/Layout and the
Main Linac sections from Raubenheimer on January 1, 2007, and they are
posted now as 

   http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=bcd_history&cache=cache&media=bcd:params_01-01-07.doc
   http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=bcd_history&cache=cache&media=bcd:main_linac_with_changes_01-01-07.doc

I am taking the following actions.

- This change request is referred to as CCR#24 thereafter.
- The CCB assigns Class-2 to this proposal.
- The CCB reviewers for CCR#24 will be C.Pagani, S.Mishra
  and W.Funk, pending confirmation, besides the CCB Chair.
- The CCB will be contacting relevant Area Group and
  Technical System Group leaders to find if the proposed
  changes, in particular, the new main ILC parameters can be
  readily accommodated by their systems.

Now this request is brought to review by the CCB, and is also open
to general discussion. Any members of GDE or GDE-related task
groups with comments or questions on this request, please, direct
them to ml-ccb@xxxxxxxxxxxx and/or ml-ext-gde@xxxxxxxxxxxx
by the end of Thursday, January 11, 2007.

My thank, in advance, as usual, for your cooperation.

BCD is available at
   http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?id=bcd:bcd_home
BCD change history is available at
   http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?id=bcd:bcd_history
   Important public communications related to CCR#24 is posted
   there.

Sincerely,

- Nobu Toge (KEK, Accelerator Lab)
  email: toge@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  voice: +81-29-864-5224
  fax:   +81-29-864-3182

ps. Attached are few additional notes and email messages which may be of 
general interest in relation to CCR#24.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Dec, 7, 2006 issue of ILC NewsLine indicated, a new report on the Parameter
for ILC by the Parameter Subcommittee under ILCSC has been made available as

   http://www.linearcollider.org/newsline/pdfs/20061207_LC_Parameters_Novfinal.pdf

The link to this document is available from BCD main at

   http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?id=bcd:bcd_home
   (Check the section under "Critical References for BCD")

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

# CCB note:
#     Below is the email that delivered Tor's CCR memo that is now
#     posted at:
#
#     http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=bcd_history&cache=cache&media=bcd:ccr24_proposal.pdf    

Subject: New CCR to replace CCR #20
From: Raubenheimer, Tor O.
To: N.Toge
Cc: EC, Chris Adolphsen
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 06:28:22 -0800

Dear Nobu and CCB,

I have enclosed a new change request.  This is an update of CCR #20 with 
a number of modification and a number of clarifications.  

It relies on the documentation supplied and derived for CCR#20.

Please contact me for further clarification.
Best,
Tor



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

# CCB note:
#     Below is the email that delivered Tor's replacement text for Params
#     and ML sections of BCD, now posted at:
#
#     http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=bcd_history&cache=cache&media=bcd:params_01-01-07.doc
#     http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=bcd_history&cache=cache&media=bcd:main_linac_with_changes_01-01-07.doc

Subject: CCR 20 replacement
From: Raubenheimer, Tor O.
To: N.Toge
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 20:46:32 -0800

Hi Nobu.

Here are modifications to the linac and parameters sections of the BCD.  
Given the very late date, I do not think it is worth putting to much effort 
into improving either much further.

Hope you had a great holiday!
Tor



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

# CCB note:
#     Below is a message from Barry, transmitted by Maxine, which
#     clarifies the EC's position concerning CCR#20 and its intention
#     to rework on it, while continuing GDE efforts on ILC cost
#     reduction, yet at the same time maintaining the CCB process that had
#     been laid out at the Frascati GDE meeting.


Subject: Working Assumptions - A message from Barry
From: Maxine Hronek
To: RDR Ldrs, Rich Stanek, Ohuchi Norihito
Cc: RDR Mgmt
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:54:55 -0600

Colleagues:

Let me try to clarify what working assumptions should be made for the
continuing work on the design and costing.  As you all know, we have
been having a rapid flurry of changes and change requests, some acted
on the CCB and some in process.  In fact, this past week the CCB
recommended to the EC that CR#20 be declined, and the CCB is still
working on the other requests.  This CR#20 recommendation was
discussed at length within the EC last week, where we assessed the
process used by the CCB in coming to its recommendation (which we
decided was fine) and also we discussed the cost issue, which was not
taken into account by the CCB.

As a result of the EC discussions, we reaffirmed the significant cost
savings that can be realized by CR#20 and also the need for us to
realize this reduction, either through this or some other
changes.  We then decided that this Change Request should be reworked
to address the issues brought up the CCB and then resubmitted.   We
expect that eventually a modified version of this request will be
accepted by the CCB.

For the purpose of costing and continuing work, I recommend that all
groups assume that all the presently submitted Change Requests will
be accepted.  Of course, there might be modifications, but the best
working assumptions we can use is that these will be changes that
will be instituted.  This means that we are doing the costing under
those assumptions, but may have to change depending on the outcome of
the CCB actions.  The CCB process will not be compromised by making
these working assumptions, but rather we will enable work to go
forward while they compete their process.

Barry


----------------------------------------------------------------------------