To: US ATLAS Physics and Computing Advisory Panel
From: John Huth, Associate Manager, US ATLAS Physics and Computing Program
Re: Charge to the Panel for Nov. 14-16 Meeting

2 October 2002

We will be soliciting your comments and recommendations on a number of
items have changed since our last agency review.

First, the slip of the turn on date of the LHC to 2007 requires a
change in the scheduling for the program.

Second, the physics and computing program has been merged with M&O to
form a coherent "Research Program".

Third, subsequent to the November review and the announcement of the
stretch-out of the turn on of the LHC, we were given a revised and
much lower funding profile. This made it very difficult to support
everyone currently on the project, and provide even a modest ramp of
the Tier 1 facility at Brookhaven.

Fourth, the inception of the LHC Computing Grid Project implies a
stronger coherence of deliverables from US ATLAS and US CMS with CERN
as a whole, rather than deliverables simply to one or the other
experiment -- they become more linked.

Fifth, grid projects in the US and Europe are gaining significant
momentum and are creating a need for a more coherent approach to the
grid projects and their relation to the experiments.

Finally, the NSF has encouraged US ATLAS and US CMS jointly to submit
two large ITR proposals. These proposals are being coordinated with
CERN and the European community to achieve a greater coherency than
we've had before.

With all of the above issues arising since the last meeting, we will
most likely need to have a revision of the WBS, and more importantly
to take a look at the deliverables of the project, and how they relate
to the above changes.  We will be presenting an overview that combines
many of the existing core deliverables, along with a new schedule that
recognizes new deliverables associated with grid activities and the
Tier 2 facilities.

We will be asking for advice in the following areas:

1.) Are the new grid deliverables properly scoped to the funding
available and the deliverables proposed?

2.) Is the new schedule, including the revised Tier 2 selection
procedure, sensible?

3.) Are the plans for coordination with CERN, the LCG, CMS and
European practical?  Should they be revised?

4.) How is the current management of the Physics and Computing Project
working?  How is work distributed and how are decisions taken?  Is the
management of the project properly configured, or should it be
modified in light of new developments?  (it is possible that the
reviewers may be presented with some management changes).

5.) Within the constraints of funding, are the project priorities
correct?  If funding is tighter than expected, where would we have to
cut?

This will be less of a "dress rehearsal" for the agency review and
more of a use of the PCAP to obtain important advice on these
important issues.

John Huth