[pioneer-dei-chairs] Message from the Collaboration Engagement Committee to the IB chair

[Bruce Schumm]

Thanks Chloe. That date/time does work for me!

Bruce

On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 11:37 AM Chloe Malbrunot <cmalbrunot at triumf.ca>
wrote:

> Hi Bruce,
>
> Apologies for the late rely.
>
>  In general that's a pretty good time for me, but this coming meeting
> (Tues Aug 4) I have a long-scheduled PhD candidacy exam to attend.
> Nominally it's over by 11:30 but I don't want to cut short any discussion
> with the committee or my student, so I should probably not commit to that.
> But I should be able to attend regularly after that - perhaps I can check
> in at the beginning of each meeting.
>
> Great! We can go over the points in the letter at our new meeting on Sept
> 1st - 11am PT.
> Would  that work for you?
>
>   In the meantime, here's my initial proposal for "official" PIONEER
> meetings, for your review, and then after possible revision, for discussion
> among the IB as to how to formalize the definition of "official". Let me
> know your thoughts about this list. I assembled it by reviewing the PIONEER
> calendar and putting on the list what I saw as the formal meetings.   Bruce
>
> General
> SPA
> ATAR
> Calo
> EDI
> Beam
> DTD
> IB meetings
>
>
> That looks good to me!
> Best
> Chloé
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 11:42 AM Chloe Malbrunot <cmalbrunot at triumf.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Bruce,
>>
>> We are meeting once a month, every first Tuesday at 11am PT.
>> So the next meeting is August 4th.
>> Would that work for you?
>>
>> Chloé
>>
>> Le 17 juil. 2026 à 08:46, Bruce Schumm <baschumm at ucsc.edu> a écrit :
>>
>> 
>> Many thanks Chloe!
>>
>> How often do you meet? I could see joining fairly often for starters -
>> maybe every other week - at least while we're getting started on this list.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 5:29 PM Chloe Malbrunot <cmalbrunot at triumf.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Bruce,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>> I'll be back at TRIUMF later next week, but I wanted to send a few quick
>>> comments and answers in the meantime.
>>>
>>>    Thanks for this thoughtful message. Let's get going on this. I think
>>> there's a bit too much to bite off in one big thrust, so let me start in on
>>> a couple of them.
>>>
>>>    I think one think I'd like to start in on is meeting notes. Here, we
>>> should define a set of meetings that are "official", for which we will want
>>> notes circulated and archived. Then we should also set up the archiving
>>> procedures. Let me try to look at the PIONEER calendar and come up with a
>>> list, and then we can iterate.
>>>
>>> sounds good !
>>>
>>>
>>>   I think I'd also like to start in on 1: The mandate and context of the
>>> committee. My sense is that this has become much less of a concern over the
>>> past year but of course I want to check in with the community about that.
>>> Another reason I'm interested in starting there is because I'd like a bit
>>> of guidance from this group about one procedural point. You recommend that
>>> the IB provide guidance here, which seems sensible to me. That's a good
>>> body to draw in prospective from - I agree. However, you also say that you
>>> feel the Board should only meet during collaboration meetings, which aren't
>>> regularly scheduled and are somewhat infrequent, and at which time can be
>>> rather precious.
>>>
>>> I don't believe it was our intention to say that the IB should meet
>>> *only* during collaboration meetings. I apologize if the wording was
>>> ambiguous.
>>> What we meant was that the IB should meet *at least *at every
>>> collaboration meeting, while additional meetings can be held as needed.
>>>
>>> I'd be interested in your thoughts on this, because it will be some time
>>> before the next collaboration meeting and so we wouldn't be able to follow
>>> though on this suggestion until some unspecified time in the future.
>>> Another thing that's on my mind is that there is at least one (RPI) and
>>> perhaps other (Sherbrooke I hope) groups that wish to join the
>>> collaboration. It would seem beneficial to me to have a more flexible way
>>> to admit the groups than awaiting a discussion and vote at a collaboration
>>> meeting.
>>>
>>> I would completely agree. The IB chair has the authority to call more
>>> frequent IB meetings.
>>>
>>>   Anyway, let me know your thoughts on this. Also, the work outlined in
>>> your email is opening a process that will play out over some time and
>>> probably have a good bit of back-and-forth, so if you would like to
>>> structure the communications between me and the committee in some way, we
>>> can discuss that too, including regular check-ins if we think that's
>>> helpful.
>>>
>>> That would be great! We could envisage you joining some (or a part of)
>>>  our meetings or schedule separate meetings with the chairs.
>>> Let us know what you’d prefer or think might be most efficient.
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Chloé
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/10/2026 11:18 PM, Chloe Malbrunot wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Bruce,
>>>
>>> Following the October 2025 collaboration meeting, several concerns have
>>> been raised by members of the collaboration and by members of the
>>> Collaboration Engagement Committee (former DEI committee), which we would
>>> like to formally bring to the attention of the Institutional Board.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1/ “DEI” Committee Mandate and Current Context
>>> The first set of concerns relates to the existence and mandate of the
>>> PIONEER CEC Committee. During recent discussions, several collaboration
>>> members expressed apprehension about receiving communications explicitly
>>> labeled as “diversity”-related or about having members of their
>>> institutions involved in DEI activities.
>>>
>>> While renaming the committee might alleviate some immediate concerns,
>>> this would not address the broader and more structural issues. At this
>>> stage, it would be important for the Institutional Board to provide
>>> guidance on how the collaboration should proceed in light of the current
>>> U.S. context regarding DEI efforts. This should include an assessment of
>>> potential risks and mitigation strategies, which would then inform how the
>>> current committee might evolve, whether through changes to its mandate, or
>>> adjustments to its operating model, while still allowing it to pursue its
>>> mission.
>>>
>>> It was recognized that this topic will require ongoing discussions
>>> within the IB, as the situation is evolving and may affect different member
>>> institutes in different ways. There should also be explicit recognition
>>> that this issue can impact our ability to attract and retain collaborators,
>>> both positively and negatively, and is therefore of strategic importance to
>>> the collaboration as a whole.
>>>
>>> 2/ Role and Functioning of the Institutional Board
>>>
>>> We would like to share a few suggestions aimed at enhancing transparency
>>> and clarity in the Institutional Board (IB) decision-making process. First,
>>> we would suggest that the IB be mandated to meet during scheduled
>>> collaboration meetings. This would ensure that members have an adequate
>>> opportunity to consider issues before any decisions are made. Second, any
>>> IB vote should be preceded by appropriate discussion. Online voting could
>>> remain a useful tool for routine or administrative matters, e.g., approval
>>> of meeting minutes, but we suggest that substantive decisions be handled
>>> during meetings where discussion can take place. Third, we encourage the
>>> preparation of formal IB meeting minutes. These minutes could be reviewed
>>> and approved by the IB and subsequently distributed to the collaboration to
>>> ensure that decisions and discussions are clearly documented. Finally, it
>>> may be helpful for discussions leading to votes to take place through an
>>> official IB mailing list or similar channel. Maintaining an archive of such
>>> communications and making it accessible to the collaboration would provide
>>> a transparent record of the deliberation process.
>>>
>>> 3/ Meeting Documentation and Accessibility
>>>
>>>
>>> The CE committee would like to raise the issue of meeting documentation
>>> and information sharing within the collaboration. The systematic generation
>>> of meeting minutes, together with the adoption of a more suitable platform
>>> for hosting presentations and minutes than DocDB (for example, Wiki/
>>> Indico), would significantly improve accessibility and transparency.
>>> As the collaboration now spans six time zones, it is increasingly
>>> difficult for members to attend all meetings. While recordings are helpful,
>>> they are often difficult to review in full. Concise written minutes
>>> summarizing the main discussion points, decisions, and clearly identified
>>> action items would greatly assist collaboration members in staying informed
>>> about the current status, ongoing discussions, and future directions of the
>>> project.
>>> Many meeting chairs have already started using AI-assisted note-taking
>>> tools. While these tools are not perfect, they represent a valuable first
>>> step toward broader and more accessible communication across the
>>> collaboration. We would therefore recommend that similar approaches be
>>> adopted for general meetings whenever dedicated human note-taking is not
>>> feasible.
>>> We would also encourage the IB to consider how meetings and
>>> collaboration meetings are scheduled in order to enable broader
>>> participation across the collaboration. In the current setup, some
>>> collaboration members and institutions are effectively excluded from
>>> meaningful participation in discussions throughout much of the year because
>>> of time zone constraints. Addressing this issue would help promote more
>>> equitable and inclusive participation across the collaboration. The CEC
>>> would be very happy to provide suggestions and contribute to discussions on
>>> possible approaches. However, meaningful progress will ultimately require
>>> support, commitment, and implementation from the IB and collaboration
>>> leadership.
>>>
>>> 4/ Service Tasks
>>>
>>> Finally, the CE committee would like to raise the issue of service tasks
>>> within the collaboration. A number of such tasks, including the creation of
>>> the logo, migration of the wiki, development of the website, and related
>>> activities;  have been taken on by members of the CE committee by default.
>>> These activities are not formally part of the committee’s mandate and have
>>> required a non-negligible investment of time and effort from the
>>> individuals involved, often without broad collaboration, engagement, or
>>> ownership.
>>>
>>> Going forward, we would suggest establishing a clearer framework for
>>> collaboration service tasks, with responsibilities distributed more broadly
>>> across collaboration members and institutions. This could take the form of
>>> a maintained list of service tasks to which all members or groups are
>>> expected to contribute. Such tasks could include website and documentation
>>> maintenance, meeting minute-taking, organization of collaboration meetings,
>>> and other activities essential to the functioning of the collaboration.
>>>
>>> We thank you for your attention to these issues. It is clear to us that
>>> PIONEER is an emerging collaboration and that its organizational structure
>>> will be evolving as it matures to an established experiment. By no means do
>>> our suggestions constitute a critique of the current committees or
>>> organizational structure. On the contrary, we hope that our feedback will
>>> be constructive and helpful in supporting the development of the experiment
>>> toward its realization and attracting new collaborators.
>>> The CE Committee would be happy to discuss any of these points further
>>> and provide any clarification or additional input that may be helpful.
>>>
>>> The CEC chairs on behalf of the Collaboration Engagement Committee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.triumf.ca/pipermail/pioneer-dei-chairs/attachments/20260805/f920d0bc/attachment-0001.html>