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

[Bruce Schumm]

Hi Chloe,

 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.

  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


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/20260717/5538bfbf/attachment-0001.html>