Charge to the Committee:

General Charge (Aug 2000) This Panel is asked to review the joint effort by U.S. CMS, CMS and the other LHC experiments to provide a suitable set of tools for physics research. A large contribution to the computing software, hardware and physics analysis tools by the U.S. collaborators is essential for the success of the CMS experiment. A high level of participation by the U.S. collaborators is also necessary in order to meet our own goals for physics results when the experiment starts to operate. The efforts in the U.S. must be integrated seamlessly into CMS as a whole. It is essential to take into account the collaboration, not only with the whole of CMS, but also with the common elements of the LHC computing environment as coordinated at CERN and in the U.S. We are interested in evaluations of technical choices as well as considerations of cost and schedule. We begin this Oversight early enough that plans for the management of our project as well as the joint efforts can be evaluated in the light of your experience. CERN is just launching an intense study of these matters and will be interested in input. The Oversight Panel should provide advice to the U.S. CMS Project Manager for Software and Computing. The reports will be transmitted to the Fermilab Associate Director in his oversight role, and the Chair of this Panel will be invited periodically to meetings of the Fermilab Physics Advisory Committee to present the status and plans for the project. The tasks in the U.S. CMS Software and Computing Project are structured under two categories, each with a leader reporting to the Project Manager for Software and Computing. 1. Core Application Software: Core software and detector simulation at the subsystem level and reconstruction software. 2. User Facility: Regional Center (Tier 1); Remote Analysis Centers (Tier2 and 3) and networking. The Panel should examine the following aspects of these in the overall Project: Technical scope, capabilities and progress Costs Provisions for contingency Resource loaded schedules It should examine the Management Plan and the ongoing management of the project as well. We expect that the Panel will meet twice a year. We hope to receive the written report about six weeks after a review. We acknowledge the extensive nature of the questions we are asking and hope that they can all be addressed in the first few meetings. Specific Focus for Oct 2001 Review These are the issues Project Management would like specifically to be addressed by the review committee. We expect the committee to scrutinize the technical progress and managerial performance of the project and give feedback to project management and Fermilab management. In addition and in view of the upcoming DOE/NSF Review of the project we would like to get specific feedback on issues pertaining to the baselining of the project. The goal of the DOE/NSF review is to assess the scope, cost and schedule baselines for the U.S. LHC Software and Computing Projects, and their management structures. The Projects are expected to present self-consistent baseline plans targeted to the funding guidance received from DOE and NSF, and separately address how they would use incremental funds. For your reference the charge to the DOE/NSF review committee is appended. We expect the committee to give feedback on the following topics: The project plan was modified to accommodate the back-loaded funding profiles given by the funding agencies, and adapting to the LHC schedule as defined in spring 2001. The modification to WBS and schedule in stretching the Computing R&D, modifying the manpower estimate and shifting the ramp up of equipment deployment will be discussed. We will also evaluate and discuss the impact of a potential delay in the LHC startup on the project plans. The Project, together with the U.S. Construction Project, and on behalf of the U.S. CMS Collaboration, has put forward a Proposal to the NSF for the preparation of the LHC research program, including both Software and Computing and detector Maintenance and Operations. The November review will be part of the reviewing process for this proposal. The scope of the proposal includes personnel for CAS and equipment and personnel for Tier-2 centers. We would welcome comments on the contents of the proposal, specifically on the scope for NSF contribution to CAS, the scope, costs and schedule for Tier-2 centers, and the split between DOE and NSF responsibilities. Comment on managerial issues related to the proposal. Besides R&D in preparation of the final facilities for LHC startup, the User Facilities Project operates an emerging User Facility for the growing community of users from the physics study groups. Is the Project and Fermilab as the host lab successful and efficient as a User Facility for the U.S. CMS physics efforts, supporting the physics group activities and in delivering satisfactory services to the User Community. Is Fermilab's support for the Project commensurate with its role as the host lab and as a potential Analysis Center for CMS physics. CERN has defined and launched a "LHC Computing Grid Project" to address the computing needs of the LHC experiments. Advise on U.S. CMS' involvement and the role of Fermilab in the international efforts. Comment on your assessment of the international CMS effort and the U.S. project's vulnerability to possible shortfalls in the overall resources and how associated risks can be mitigated. Since the last meeting two new Grid projects have started. The PPDG project has received funding and has started to form a CMS team. The iVDGL project was recently approved by the NSF. U.S. CMS is part of the project with its prototyping efforts for Tier-2 centers at Caltech/UCSD and U.Florida. The committee should comment on the interactions with the Grid projects and the progress and directions in the Grid R&D and Tier-2 prototyping efforts. We will present an update on recent developments in the core application software including issues on the event database and CMS' plans for the near future. The SCOP reviews are an important element of project oversight and help and provide advice to project management, in order to ensure that U.S. CMS meets its commitments on cost and on schedule. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. For your reference: Excerpt from the Charge to the Nov 2001 DOE/NSF Review The charge for [the November 2001 DOE/NSF] review will be to assess: The overall scope of the U.S. LHC S&C efforts, and their connections to both the international LHC S&C efforts and the CERN LHC Computing Project ; The risk to U.S. LHC S&C schedule or scope given current funding profiles and overall LHC project schedules; The contributions of each of the U.S. collaborations in providing and supporting "core" and detector-specific software deliverables to the international ATLAS and CMS computing efforts; The function, scope and structure of the national ("Tier 1") U.S. LHC computing facilities, and their relationship to any smaller regional and university facilities; The integration of computing infrastructure efforts (such as networking and Grid computing) into the planning and execution of the US LHC S&C projects ; The plans of the U.S. collaborations to provide computing resources to users and their success in integrating them into the software development process; Existing and possible common computing projects which could benefit both ATLAS and CMS; and The Project Management Plans, organizational structures, and adequacy of personnel for each of the U.S. LHC S&C Projects.

....