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

[Bruce Schumm]

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/20260717/24959115/attachment.html>