Bylaws of the CLAS Collaboration
Motions, resolutions, and procedures approved by the Collaboration during formal business meetings
which are currently in effect to govern implementation of various Charter
A1. DATA-TAKING SHIFT POLICY
CLAS shifts are manned by two people at all times, one shift expert (or "leader") and one shift worker. Expert shifts start at 00:00, 08:00 and 16:00 and worker shifts start at 04:00, 12:00 and 20:00.
Each collaborating institution has a contact person responsible for filling all shifts assigned to that institution. The method for choosing shift personnel is left to the discretion of the contact person and his or her institution, but must conform to the overall guidelines described here. The current shift schedule and shift-schedule editor are available at http://clasweb.jlab.org/cgi-bin/clas_shift/SHIFTS/welcome.pl
This by-law only deals with general shift-taking concerned with experimental
data-taking. It does not deal with specialized shift-taking concerned
with a particular detector or software element, nor with any other activity
performed by collaboration members in fulfillment of their MOU's or physics
II. Shift Taker's Qualifications and Conduct of Operations
All "Expert" and "Worker" shift takers must meet certain criteria itemized here. In addition, anyone participating in data taking with CLAS must have a level of safety and radiation training described in the CLAS "Conduct of Operations" (COO) document. It provides an authoritative discussion of shift operations, including the duties and responsibilities of the shift Expert and the shift Worker. The COO is presently available at http://clasweb.jlab.org/shift/current/.
All full and term members of the CLAS Collaboration are eligible for worker shifts. Limited members and non-members, including new graduate students, may be assigned shifts by the institutional contact persons supervising the filling of the shift schedule. Undergraduate students may not be assigned shifts without prior approval of the Physics Division Liaison (PDL, a.k.a. CLAS COP).
Prior to taking his or her first-ever scheduled shift, a person must be an observer on at least one shift in order to become familiar with procedures and (typically) to finish reading the required documents listed in the COO.
The list of expert shift takers who can act as shift leaders is determined by the PDL, who is responsible for the safe and effective operation of the system. Experts must be full or term members of CLAS. Expert status implies experience in running CLAS shifts, not necessarily expert knowledge of hardware and software components of the system.
Oral communication skills that enable effective communication with the accelerator staff are required for shift leaders. The PDL must be satisfied that any given shift leading expert has adequate language skills.
If an individual is not qualified as an expert, the shift schedule page will not accept him or her for an expert shift.
III. Shift Scheduling
At six month intervals, the collaboration Shift Scheduler will revise the membership list of the collaboration maintained by the Membership Committee. Shifts will be assigned in 4 day blocks to all member institutions in proportion to their number of full and term members. Limited members will NOT be included in this enumeration.
A shift-trading period will be organized under the leadership of the Shift Scheduler to allow foreign, domestic, and local institutions to optimize their periods of shift-taking responsibility to their needs.
Any persons added to an institution's list of Worker shift takers by the institution's contact person will NOT thereby automatically become members of the CLAS collaboration. For example, new graduate students who are assigned shifts are not thereby made members of CLAS. By assigning shifts to non-members, an institution's contact person is certifying that the persons so assigned will have met the Worker shift taker's requirements by the time the shift starts.
The PDL has the authority to reject a person for a shift if he or she thinks that the person is unqualified. The relevant institution then has responsibility for finding a suitable replacement.
If a shift goes unfilled, either by no-show or no-qualify, the incident
will be brought to the attention of the Membership Committee for possible
action, such as removing institutional shift credits.
"Each member must be listed with at least one "Service Group" -- details to be developed". The purpose of these groups shall be to coordinate and fairly account for shared responsibility in various maintenance and upkeep tasks, above and beyond shift staffing during actual running periods.
Approved by Acclamation.
Implementation -- A subcommittee was formed to refine this concept for
more detailed presentation at the next collaboration meeting. Mac
Mestayer was appointed to Chair the sub-committee.
"Now that CLAS has been built and commissioned the responsibilities of the member institutions have shifted from construction issues to those regarding operation, upgrades, calibration and analysis. To acknowledge this change, each institution shall provide a proposal for service work to the collaboration which will supplement the Memoranda of Understanding in defining collaboration duties in addition to the responsibilities of shift-taking.
The document shall explicitly state the nature
and duration of the institution's proposed service work where service work
is defined as the following:
- Service work can be hardware or software work which is beneficial to the collaboration as a whole.
- Service work does not include physics analyses per se, but does include physics calculations or software implementations which are general enough to be used by others.
- The service work proposal can be a single task or a collection of separate tasks taken by individuals within the institution.
The suitability of an institution's proposal for service work shall be judged by a joint committee comprised of members from both the membership committee and from the technical working group committee. The joint committee will work with the institution to resolve any issues regarding the kind or amount of work proposed. If disagreements can not be worked out between the institution and the joint committee, final authority rests with the whole collaboration."
APPROVED -- by show of hands.
Implementation -- Ken Hicks was subsequently appointed as founding chair
of the Service Work Committee.
B. NEW MEMBERS
The CLAS collaboration welcomes applications from groups or individuals interested in becoming full or limited members. Each class of membership has a set of rights and responsibilities that are matched according to a long-term or a short-term working arrangement with the collaboration.
A limited member becomes a member for a specific set of experiments, often for one specific experiment. This member class is discussed in the CLAS Charter.
A full member will most often join as a member of an existing CLAS group or as part of a new CLAS group. We regard the acceptance of a new full member as a significant commitment by both the member and the collaboration. Both sides should be confident that the responsibilities assumed by the new member are appropriate, i.e., well defined, significant, and consistent with available resources.
A primary part of the application is the definition of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which outlines the activities of the new member to conduct experiments and analyze data with CLAS. New people joining existing CLAS groups can join existing MOU's if they are appropriately extended.
Following initial contact with a member of the Coordinating Committee, the following procedures will be used.
[See below for previously existing internal procedures
within the Membership Committee that remain in effect to specify the manner
in which the early steps of items 1 and 2 will be implemented.]
The following By-laws were originally passed by the Membership Committee in November '93, (Rory Miskimen, Chair) -- and have been modified as necessary for consistency with more recent Policy updates.
These particular items originated as specifications
within the membership committee of the procedures then in use to carry
out the Membership Policy defined in the Charter, and thus must remain
consistent with any subsequent statements that receive the support of the
full collaboration (such as the 9/97 Dodge resolution) which refine the
interpretation of that Policy.
The purpose of this set of bylaws is to initiate standard procedures for the nomination of individuals by the Membership Committee for membership in the collaboration, and for conducting the election of new members. The Charter determines the qualifications of new members, and that the members must be notified of the list of nominees at least 30 days in advance of the election. In addition the members of the Collaboration have voted that the nominee or nominator must appear in person at the meeting at which the elections are held.
Procedures are hereby presented concerning nominations, elections and information to be furnished to the New Members Committee. [Note: The Membership Committee organizational structure currently specifies two internal committees -- New Members, and Election of Officers.]
Introduction: Section XI of the CLAS Charter provides the general rules for publishing results in peer-reviewed journals. The language in that section was adopted as a charter amendment in January 1998. This bylaw is intended to fill in the procedural details of this process.
The CC will appoint an Ad-Hoc committee as soon as it is informed that a paper is being written. It is recommended that lead authors ask for an Ad-Hoc committee for their paper as soon as practical, in order that the concerns and criticisms of the committee can be addressed in a timely way. The committee can work with the authors to discuss issues related to publishability of a paper. When the Ad-Hoc committee is asked to review a finished draft of a paper, it should act within 15 days with recommendations regarding the paper -- reduced to 7 days for Fast Track.
The charter calls for an Ad-Hoc committee of usually 3 individuals tobe designated by the Coordinating Committee (CC) to review each paper presented to the CC for consideration. The Ad-Hoc committee shall be composed of persons not directly involved in the results to be published, and will have representation from at least two of the CLAS Physics Working Groups. At least one member shall be from the working group which is developing the paper. The members of the Ad-Hoc committee shall be announced to the Collaboration.
The paper will be available for review by the Collaboration in a secure (password-protected) area of the CLAS Web pages. No member of the Collaboration may disseminate the draft paper to persons outside the Collaboration until final Collaboration approval for publication is granted. In particular, distribution to e-print servers is not allowed until collaboration approval is granted.
The normal comment period for feedback from the Collaboration to the authors and Ad-Hoc committee shall be at least 15 days. For FastTrack, the Collaboration shall be notified of FastTrack status and the draft shall be made available to the Collaboration for initial reading at the same time that it is assigned to the Ad Hoc committee. The feedback period is reduced to 7 days beyond the period specified in 2) for Ad-Hoc committee recommendations.
If there are NO comments from the Collaboration during the specified comment period, approval is granted, according to the charter. If there are one or more criticisms, then the authors must address these criticisms. The Ad-Hoc committee will decide whether to accept the responses, and whether to restart the comment period clock. In case of conflicts, the appeals mechanism in charter section XI.6 will be followed.
According to the CLAS Collaboration Charter, the accurate and broad dissemination of results to the scientific community by talks from members of the CLAS Collaboration is the responsibility of the CLAS Coordinating Committee. To that end, the Coordinating Committee hereby establishes a Collaboration Speakers' Committee (herein referred to as the CSC). Except in the matter of appeals, the decision of the CSC concerning speaker selection will be accepted as the Coordinating Committee decision.
Given that there are reaction channels or observables present in the CLAS data sets which are not covered by any already-approved CLAS experiments, this policy regulates how existing full members of the CLAS Collaboration may gain approval of the whole Collaboration to undertake the relevant analysis.
Since all full members of the CLAS Collaboration
have free and equal access to all CLAS data (Charter Section IX), this
policy regulates the issue of priority of working on an analysis with a
specific stated physics goal. This policy covers work that will NOT
be separately presented to a Jefferson Lab PAC.
F. Data Calibration and Cooking
II. Off-line Technical Working Group
The Coordinating Committee, the Off-line Technical Working Group, and all the Analysis Coordinators will meet at each Collaboration Meeting. They will discuss progress made in CLAS calibration and cooking. In the event of scarcity of resources such as manpower or computing facilities, it is in this forum that decisions about resource allocations should be made. Service Work commitments of the Universities can and should include providing manpower towards these needs.
G. Review of Proposals and Letters of Intent
APPROVED (formal -- show of hands)
b. Motion: "The Coordinating Committee is directed to take a proactive stance rather than a reactive position with respect to presentations at professional meetings."
APPROVED (consensus -- no objection)
c. Extract from Charter revision proposal:
(For papers recommended for publication by their respective ad-hoc review committees)
"The title, abstract, and proposed list of authors, along with address of a secure FTP site or similar depository where the document can be obtained, will be distributed via Email to each Collaboration Member."
DELETED from the proposal for Charter amendment as too specific for inclusion in that document (accepted as a friendly amendment by the original maker of that motion)
RECOMMENDED as a reasonable procedure that should be considered
by the Coordinating Committee in implementing the Charter requirement for
access to the text of publications under review. (consensus
-- no objection)
d. Motion: B. Ritchie -- second L. Dennis
"To accept the report of the ad-hoc Committee on Publication Policy Review, and recommend that the provisions for Charter Amendment contained therein -- as amended -- be approved for submission to a final vote at the next Collaboration Meeting."
APPROVED (formal -- show of hands)
[Committee Report printed immediately below.]
The following is the text of the Publication Committee report, as amended and endorsed by action of the September 6 meeting. The Charter Amendments mentioned in this document subsequently received formal approval at the Jan'98 Business Meeting, and are now fully incorporated as Article IX of the Charter, so that language is no longer duplicated here. The Preamble to the report, however, is still relevant in its own right because of the strong endorsement that was granted by the meeting to this record of the RATIONALE behind the amendments.
From Members of the CLAS Publication Policy Review Committee: Bill Briscoe Hall Crannell (Chair), Sebastian Kuhn, Mac Mestayer, Jim Mueller, Timothy Smith, Mauro Taiuti
This is the report of the committee established as the result of a motion passed at the CLAS Collaboration meeting of April 30 - May 3, 1997. The charge to this committee was rather broad. The members, listed above, were to review the current policy on publication of papers coming from the CLAS Collaboration, as set forth in the CLAS Charter, and report any recommendations for changes to the membership 30 days prior to the next meeting.
The Committee considered the following questions brought to its attention:
o Are the procedures we now have for publication of physics papers reasonable in the light of five years of experience gained since the Charter was adopted?
o Are all members of the collaboration to be offered the chance to be included as authors on apparatus/instrument papers, or is it clear that these papers are not "physics papers"?
o Should the CLAS Collaboration have input, editorial or otherwise, into apparatus papers? Such a review might help assure that no member who had contributed to the instrument in a significant manner was inadvertently left off, or that data that belongs to the collaboration is correctly represented.
o Should the publications require inclusion of results for in-beam performance wherever possible, and if so, what mechanism should be established to assure that this happens?
o What is the role of senior technicians, engineers, or physicists who are not members of the collaboration in these publications?
After considering these questions and the present Charter, the Committee arrived at the following conclusions:
o Changes to the Charter should be kept to a minimum, since so far the Charter has served us well.
o Instrument papers should not be part of the overall inclusive publication process. However, to continue the overall high quality of the CLAS operation, recommendations as to procedures to be followed for these papers are in order.
o The procedures for managing publications as given in the Charter can and should be stream-lined.
o Some of the concerns presented above can probably be effectively addressed by motions or resolutions rather than by changes to the Charter.
Based on these points, the
Committee arrived at a number of suggestions for revision of the portion
of the Charter concerning publication (Section
XI). These suggested changes were formally presented at the CLAS
Collaboration meeting on September 6,'97 and, after some editing in response
to suggestions from the floor, were approved for presentation as formal
amendments to the Charter at the next collaboration meeting on Jan 10,'98
-- at which they were unanimously approved.
Strongly approved -- sense of meeting
It might be
noted that this is now the third stage in evolution of the initial concept
of the Technical Committee defined in the Charter (Article
V.D.), as the project has moved on from design, thru installation,
to calibration & maintenance. The need for flexibility of this
sort was forseen in the original Charter language, which provides (IV.B)
that changes in number and composition of Technical Groups may take place
at any time, at the discretion of the Coordinating Committee, without any
need for formal Charter amendment.
END OF CLAS BY-LAW DOCUMENT