------------------------------
				Minutes from
			Young Collaborator's Discussion
		        -------------------------------		

    For some time, there  has been the  suggestion of an undercurrent of
    dissatisfaction  on D0,  particularly  among the  younger people. In
    order    to   address  this,  a   meeting  of a   group  of  younger
    collaborators  was organized on  October 16,   1996, in which people
    were encouraged to air their  opinions on a number of D0 issues with
    the following goals in mind:

        (1) To determine whether there was in fact a significant amount 
            of unhappiness among the young experimenters who  attended;
    
        (2) If so, whether there was any  coherence to the effect, and,

        (3) To determine what, if  any, common  causes  there  were for 
            for this disaffection.

    For lack of  time, the  discussion of solutions  to the problems was
    deferred.  The  list of  people  who  attended is  shown  below (the
    organizers are shown  with a "*" by their names):

    Norm Amos                  *Drew Baden          Jerry Blazey
    Amber Boehnlein             Al Bross            Bill Cobau
    Jim Cochran                 Bill Cooper        *Marcel Demarteau
    Sarah Eno                   Terry Heuring       John Hobbs
    Boaz Klima                 *Jon Kotcher         Ron Lipton
    Sudhindra Mani              Jianming Qian       Srini Rajagopalan
    Kathy Streets               Joey Thompson       Mitch Wayne
    

    This  meeting was  a closed  one: a  finite  (and  exclusive) set of
    people, chosen by all three  organizers, were invited to attend. The
    convenors  felt that  a small,  closed  session was the  only way to
    provide the kind  of environment  in which people  would feel secure
    enough to speak up openly, and would therefore be the most effective
    means of tapping the causal roots of dissatisfaction. Clearly, then,
    as with any exclusive group,  there is the danger of a biased sample
    having been chosen.  The names of the  participants are given above,
    so that the reader of the conclusions below may weigh the results as
    he or she sees fit.
    
    It was generally agreed afterward that the meeting was very success-
    ful -- the discussion was useful and constructive, and a profession-
    al,  collegial atmosphere  was  maintained  throughout. It was found
    that there  was a  measurable  amount of   dissatisfaction among the
    young   people assembled,  and that  there were some  clear resonant
    causes.  One of the positive results of the meeting was that we were
    each  able   to  see   that  we  were  not  alone  in  our  sense of
    disaffection.  It is clear   that, in  the future,  some more formal
    means  of   addressing   people's    concerns  and  problems  on the
    experiment would be a significant and,  we feel, important step. 
    
    We discuss  below the  conclusions from  the meeting.  This note has
    been  passed by all  of the  participants  for comment  prior to its
    circulation.  It should be  noted that  not all of  the participants
    were acquainted with every topic  discussed: some were familiar with
    the upgrade  only, others  exclusively with the  analysis, and still
    others,  in  varying   degrees, with  both.   Although  there is not
    unanimous  agreement   on every  topic --  there are,  in fact, some
    issues on which  a few  individuals may have  disagreed -- the group
    feels  that  the  tone and   content   of the   discussion  has been
    adequately reflected in the notes below. 

    By their  very  nature, these minutes reflect a critical examination 
    of the experiment -- many of the significant positive aspects of our   
    efforts  on D0 are not discussed.  We hope, therefore, that it  will  
    be  read  with  the intent with  which  this process  was initiated:  
    that  critical   self-evaluation   of  our  scientific and technical  
    progress  is  a  healthy  and,  indeed, vital part of our  growth as 
    a collaboration. We very  much  hope  that this public airing of our  
    concerns  is  taken  seriously,  and  proves to  be a useful spring-
    board  for  future deliberations. 

    =========================================================================

    Overall Comments on Management, with Focus on Upgrade
    -----------------------------------------------------

    The general criticism of the two  major management entities -- those
    of  the   spokespeople  and  the  upgrade  --  were  that  they are,
    respectively, too  laissez-faire and too  heavy-handed. Much of what
    follows is a reflection of this  perception. Comments describing the
    upgrade   management  as too   "hands-off"  were  very  rare, if not
    non-existent.  There were a  number of instances,  however, in which
    the spokespersons were felt to have over-stepped the bounds of their
    mandate. In this respect, the  complaints related to them were a bit
    more  subtle. 	  We've tried,  through  specific  examples, to
    accurately describe this 	dichotomy below. It is generally thought
    that the   authority on the   experiment --  whether it  is over- or
    under-actively exercised -- is  concentrated in the hands of too few
    of our members. 
    
    In the  experiment in  general,  but in the  upgrade in  particular,
    there is  a  feeling that  authority  is not  delegated  adequately.
    Decisions are being taken by a very limited number of people without
    the consensus of the  whole group (or their  appropriate representa-
    tives).  In  addition,  it was  felt  that when the  decision-making 
    responsibility was  shared, there was a  tendency to do so primarily
    within a small circle of initiated individuals. 

    Some people  said that they were  led to believe  that they would be
    given some  responsibility  on the  upgrade, only to  find (too many
    months  later)  that the  major  responsibility  for the  project in
    question  was placed  under  Fermilab  control. Upgrade  people from
    universities feel that they have been excluded in favor of engineers
    and/or lead  technicians who  answer to Fermilab  management. It  is
    felt by some of  the university  people that their  design work  has
    been revamped by laboratory personnel, sometimes without any  direct
    consultation   with  the   university  parties   involved.  From our
    discussion,  it  appears that,  whatever the   underlying reasons, a
    rather  large block  of talent  has been  alienated  from working on
    upgrade projects. 

    University participation in the upgrade was considered to be further
    hampered by the MoU regulation.  Although the MOU's are an important
    component of the  overall funding of  university groups, the flow of
    money  is   ultimately at  the  sole   discretion of   Fermilab. The
    perception is that  peer review has more or  less been replaced by a
    Fermilab   review. In   addition,  Fermilab   accounting is  seen as
    unfavorable  to  universities, since  only money  coming from the D0
    upgrade budget is considered.  Costs covered by Fermilab's operating
    budget are  not  accounted for,  making it  appear to  be cheaper to
    build detectors at  Fermilab than at the  universities. As a result,
    university groups feel short-cut.

    It was thought  that the  responsibilities and  duties of management
    positions have  changed over the  course of the  years, but that the
    new managers have not been allowed to grow into the managerial roles
    which the size  of the project  now demands.  Because of the lack of
    proper reliance on these managers, projects tend to be micro-managed
    from above and, since the  decisions tend to be made by one or a few
    individuals with alot  on their plate, the  decision-making  process
    is often too slow. People are given responsibility, but no authority
    to act:  all major   decisions appear  to have  to go  through upper
    management     before  they  can be    implemented,    stripping the
    decision-making authority from  the appointed middle- level managers
    of the projects.  People feel that much of  this could be alleviated
    if authority on the experiment were properly delegated.

    Analysis Issues
    ---------------

    Some people  feel that much of  the foundation  work for analyses is
    simply  deemed  unimportant or  skipped in  favor of  publication or
    putting out conference results; that there is an excessive push from
    above  to get   results out  before  they  are  ready, and  that our
    reputation has  suffered in the  process. Overall,  many people feel
    that the scientific  standards on the  experiment are  too low; that
    our physics has been compromised by an unbalanced preoccupation with
    political, rather  than scientific,  concerns. There is the distinct
    impression that management has placed the priority on getting things
    out, rather than  getting things right. A  healthier balance between
    political/competitive  concerns on the one  hand, and the quality of
    our physics results on the other, was called for.

    More  generally, it  is felt  that we have not  dealt properly  with
    laying the groundwork for analyses. The amount of attention that has
    been paid to  understanding the  detector,  some particle ID issues,
    data/Monte Carlo  comparisons, and some  tracking problems, were all
    flagged  as  having  been lacking in some serious, fundamental ways. 
    It was  stated  that,  four  years  into the  analysis, we should be  
    farther along with such things.  Groups were set up  by the  spokes-
    people to deal with these issues at  the Ann Arbor  workshop, but it  
    was felt that this was too late.  Although establishing these groups 
    was certainly  a step forward,  there was no motivation or incentive  
    provided that would  have  encouraged  people  to help work in these 
    groups.  As far as could  be  determined, obtaining a  critical mass  
    of  people  needed to attack the problems was (inappropriately) left 
    to the individuals who were asked to lead them.

    A major theme throughout much of the discussions -- both upgrade and
    physics  analyses -- has  been the  perceived failure  of the reward
    structure within  the experiment.  It should be  emphasized that the
    focus of the discussion was on  the  reward structure internal to D0
    only and  not, for   instance, the  manner in which  D0 supports its
    people for  outside  employment.  It  has been  pointed out that our
    reward  system has  tended to  ignore the  significance  of what are
    traditionally called  "service tasks". It is  felt that good physics
    output,   particularly in a  large   collaboration,  requires that a
    foundation  of  traditionally  "low-profile" jobs be  done properly,
    carefully,  with enough  resources  committed to it,  and that there
    exist a  means of  replacing people  when others move  on.  Many are
    afraid of  getting  "stuck" in  these  positions, and  are therefore
    reluctant to do such  work on D0; they feel  that their careers will
    severely suffer. It is felt that,  in some fundamental and important
    ways, our output has suffered on  D0 as a result of this. One of the
    first  roles of  management  is to  ensure that  the  quality of our
    physics does not suffer as a  result of local variations in, to take
    but one  example, the  job  market. Creating  an  environment  where
    these tasks are  perceived as the important  and integral components
    of the  analysis that  they are,  is one of  the ways  we could have
    helped the  above from  adversely  impacting the  physics. The value
    system established on D0, from  this perspective, has been seriously
    lacking.

    Some people  have asked for  simple recognition  and respect for the
    contributions  they  have made  doing jobs  like this.  They feel as
    though  they are  clearly treated  as  second-class  citizens by the
    management, even though their  efforts have yielded results that are
    important for the scientific output of us all. 

    It ought to be  remembered that  the evolution to  large experiments
    has changed  the rules of  the game  significantly:  time scales for
    almost any project on D0 can take an entire post-doc's tenure. Those
    who tend  to take  their  jobs  seriously, and  see them  through to
    completion,  can seriously  suffer  unless they take  on the "right"
    project.  In light of  this, a  more equal,   collaborative approach
    needs  to be more  strongly encouraged from  above, if the important
    ingredients are to be given the attention they need and deserve.

    Discussion of Collegiality
    --------------------------

    This topic polarized the discussion as had no other. Here, the group
    was  more or less of two minds:

    Mind 1: Some people  feel that the lack of  respect shown for fellow
    collaborators, and  the heightened sense of  territoriality that has
    been exhibited in  some quarters, has  severely damaged not only the
    collaborative atmosphere on D0,  but the natural discourse about our
    physics methods  and results.  This group  generally feels that this
    type of behavior is accentuated to an unacceptable degree on D0, and
    that its  impact on the  experiment is  as important  as that of the
    other topics listed above. The  unwillingness of the spokespeople to
    decisively intervene here is seen  as a serious shortcoming in their
    leadership.

    Mind 2: Another group felt that,  while the issue had some validity,
    it was clearly of lesser importance than the other topics -- and, in
    fact, that it ought  not be elevated to the  status of the others by
    inclusion  in  these  minutes. This  group  feels that  this type of
    behavior exists on every  experiment, and that part of collaborating
    on such a large experiment includes dealing with such occurrences as
    they  happen --  that  spokesperson  inaction  is not  necessarily a
    serious deficiency in difficulties of this kind.

    We  were  unable  to  reach a   consensus  on  either  the  relative
    significance of this  issue, or on which of  the  two minds was more
    representative of the group's viewpoint.

    In  the  end,   however,  there  was a    collective  call  for more
    courteous, respectful treatment of fellow collaborators.

    Brief Conclusion
    ----------------

    It was felt  that more  open  discussions, guided by  physics, along
    with a broader  sharing of  responsibilities would  go a long way to
    addressing some of the root causes of dissatisfaction voiced by this
    group.  Many young  people feel  that their  voices are  either  not
    heard or ignored.  Listening to, and  heeding, some of our  concerns
    -- perhaps even hearing some of  us out on a regular  basis -- would
    also  help  establish a  more  inclusive,   cohesive   collaborative
    spirit.
    
    ====================================================================