tac-hep-faculty April 2023

tac-hep-faculty@lists.physics.wisc.edu

1 participants
3 discussions

Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Re: DOE Conference Support Guidelines
by Tulika Bose 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

Hi all, Jeremy clarifies about the support of lab mentor travel. We cannot do it via this conference program. So, yes, we will need to figure out alternate ways of supporting their travel. Including support from the labs themselves. Best, Tulika -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: DOE Conference Support Guidelines Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 16:58:03 +0000 From: Love, Jeremy <Jeremy.Love(a)science.doe.gov> To: Tulika Bose <tulika(a)hep.wisc.edu> Hi Tulika, The general guidance is for technical workshops and conferences and may not be strictly relevant for this traineeship event. Better examples could be the US Particle Accelerator School (USPAS) and Excellence in Detectors and Instrumentation Technologies (EDIT), but those are organized and run by labs. I will need to look into how those programs are supported. Arranging something for the future that mimics one of them may be worth considering, but they are quite formal. I believe in general support for lab staff to travel is not provided. If the proposal is submitted by a university, it must follow the standard grant review and award process which does take months. Best, -Jeremy *From:*Tulika Bose <tulika(a)hep.wisc.edu> *Sent:* Thursday, April 27, 2023 11:24 AM *To:* Love, Jeremy <Jeremy.Love(a)science.doe.gov> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: DOE Conference Support Guidelines Hi Jeremy, Thanks again for this. As you know, we are interested in figuring out travel funding of lab personnel (mentors of our TAC-HEP students) for attending our summer program (1-week session where all students get together in one place). I had hoped that we could use the conference proposal to make a case. However, when I look at the guidelines at the link below, I see: * Travel support should be limited to students who have no other source of funding. Can we still make the case for supporting travel of lab personnel ? Also, the guidelines suggesting doing this 6 month prior to the conference/workshop. We are planning ours towards the end of July, is it too late for that ? Or should we try anyway ? Thanks and best regards, Tulika On 4/24/23 4:37 PM, Love, Jeremy wrote: Hi Tulika, As we discussed here are the guidelines for requests for conference support: https://science.osti.gov/hep/Funding-Opportunities/Review-Policy-Proposal-G… <https://science.osti.gov/hep/Funding-Opportunities/Review-Policy-Proposal-G…> (see “Conference proposal guidelines” on this page). The labs or grantees should avoid requesting any overheads for such conference-related support. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we requested that any proposal include information on how the conference organizers will take safety measures during COVID as well as options for remote participation. In addition, SC recently rolled out new guidelines for conference proposals: https://science.osti.gov/grants/Applicant-and-Awardee-Resources/Conference-… <https://science.osti.gov/grants/Applicant-and-Awardee-Resources/Conference-…>. In particular, a code of conduct statement is needed in any proposal as well as a recruitment and accessibility plan. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, -Jeremy -- Jeremy Love, PhD (He/Him) Computational HEP & AI/ML Program Manager Research & Technology Division Office of High Energy Physics US Department of Energy mailto:Jeremy.Love@science.doe.gov <mailto:Jeremy.Love@science.doe.gov> ******************************************************************** This message does not originate from a known Department of Energy email system. Use caution if this message contains attachments, links or requests for information. ********************************************************************

1 0

Fwd: DOE Conference Support Guidelines
by Tulika Bose 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: DOE Conference Support Guidelines Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 21:37:02 +0000 From: Love, Jeremy <Jeremy.Love(a)science.doe.gov> To: Tulika Bose <tulika(a)hep.wisc.edu> Hi Tulika, As we discussed here are the guidelines for requests for conference support: https://science.osti.gov/hep/Funding-Opportunities/Review-Policy-Proposal-G… (see “Conference proposal guidelines” on this page). The labs or grantees should avoid requesting any overheads for such conference-related support. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we requested that any proposal include information on how the conference organizers will take safety measures during COVID as well as options for remote participation. In addition, SC recently rolled out new guidelines for conference proposals: https://science.osti.gov/grants/Applicant-and-Awardee-Resources/Conference-…. In particular, a code of conduct statement is needed in any proposal as well as a recruitment and accessibility plan. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, -Jeremy -- Jeremy Love, PhD (He/Him) Computational HEP & AI/ML Program Manager Research & Technology Division Office of High Energy Physics US Department of Energy mailto:Jeremy.Love@science.doe.gov <mailto:Jeremy.Love@science.doe.gov>

1 0

Discussion with Jeremy Love
by Tulika Bose 26 Apr '23

26 Apr '23

Dear all, Jeremy Love reached out to me for a meeting to talk about TAC-HEP. He mentioned that he really liked our detailed progress report and very much appreciated our efforts to recruit students midway through the academic year. That said, he informed me that due to a mis-understanding at his end, he would get less money than he expected for Year 2. And hence he would give us 1 student less worth of funds i.e. reduce our overall budget by ~55K for Year 2. Given the balance that we have (and he noted one student less at Princeton), he was hoping that we would manage. If not, then he would try to figure something out. Given our current situation, I could not disagree i.e. we can manage in Year 2 given our leftover funds. I did tell him that we were actively recruiting and hence would request the originally allocated funds in Year 3. He agreed. I then brought up a few other things: 1) Travel: we have limited funds for travel, especially for non-students. He mentioned that we could apply for conference support ($5-10K level) if needed and he would support it. He then sent me information about it that I will forward next. 2) He encouraged our students to apply for the SCGSR program and mentioned that it could be used to stretch out support for the student e.g. 1 year of TAC-HEP, 1 year of SCGSR and 1 year of TAC-HEP. Specifically, the student does not need to be part of TAC-HEP for two consecutive years. In particular, it appears that there is an eligibility condition associated with SCGSR (https://science.osti.gov/wdts/scgsr/Eligibility) that we should pay attention to: if a student has worked at a DOE lab (i.e. based there) for more than 3 months, they are not eligible for SCGSR! 3) I brought up my concern with the requirement of US citizenship/LPR status for our traineeship program. He appreciates this and in fact mentioned that the accelerator traineeship program had also raised this issue. He said that he would follow up regarding it (but I wouldn't hold my breath for any changes). He did mention that many of these rules were set up during the previous administration and until somebody changes them, they stay in effect. I told him that the RENEW program (also DOE) does not have this requirement. He was pleasantly surprised - this is likely the case cause it's a new initiative. 4) He again emphasized that he was really happy with what we have achieved so far and was also happy to hear that we were talking with the other traineeship programs. 5) Jeremy said that he would at some point also follow up with the lab people to hear about their experience. Given (5), I think it's important that we work on our lab connections and perhaps try and get as many of them as possible to our summer program. Best, Tulika

1 0

2024

2023

2022

tac-hep-faculty April 2023