Meeting Coordination board
Date December 20, 2005
Time 8:30 – 15:00
Location DESY, Seminar Room 7b, Building 7
Chair D. Trines
Members M. Dykes, K. Ebbinghaus, W. Peiniger, P. van Otterloo, D. Wilcox
Substitutes P. McIntosh
Staff T. Prüstel, K. Wurr

Documents & Appendices

  1. EIFast Task list 011205.doc (TOP 2a)
  2. SCRF CG 200905 Minutes final draft.doc (TOP 2b)
  3. EIFast CB 271005 Minutes final draft.doc (TOP 2c)
  4. Telegramm_SCRF-Forum_2.November2005.pdf (TOP 3a)
  5. EIFast Foundation Minutes final draft.doc (TOP 3b)
  6. EIFast Found Min App A - Agenda.pdf (TOP 3b)
  7. EIFast Found Min App B - Participants.pdf (TOP 3b)
  8. EIFast Found Min App C - Comp+Inst.pdf (TOP 3b)
  9. EIFast Found Min App D - MoU.pdf (TOP 3b)
  10. ContactdataEIFr.xls (TOP 4)
  11. EIFast draft milestones.xls (TOP 5)
  12. SCRF Cost Estimate.xls (TOP 5)
  13. Spokesperson job description 191205.ppt (TOP 6)
  14. Eifast-Logo-2.ppt (TOP 7a)
  15. EIFast draft PR Plan.xls (TOP 7b)


  1. Welcome
  2. Achievements & Minutes of the Board
    1. Achievements according to Task List
    2. CG Meeting 20.09.2005
    3. Board Meeting 27.10.2005
  3. Review of the Foundation Meeting 27. October 2005
    1. Publication and information (CERN, newspapers, web sites…)
    2. Minutes of the Plenary meeting
  4. Membership
    1. Progress and Process of MoU signing
    2. Companies involved in the Forum (identification & approach of potential members)
  5. Business plan for the Forum
  6. Spokesperson
    1. Job description for the Spokesperson
    2. Identification and addressing a Spokesperson
    3. Role of CB members in supporting Spokesperson’s efforts
  7. PR concept
    1. Forum’s name and logo
    2. Development of PR concept (on European and regional scale)
    3. Role of CB members in supporting PR efforts
  8. Future funding and EU Approach
    1. Overview on possible resources (including “sponsored” resources by CB)
    2. Progress & Strategy for EU contact
  9. Actions
    1. European Particle Accelerator Conference, Edinburgh 2006
    2. XFEL workshop Spring 2006 (proposed)
  10. Any other business
    1. Next Forum Plenary meeting
    2. ITER Workshop Barcelona
    3. EU-FP7 planning
  11. Next meeting of CB


The Spokesperson D. Trines welcomed the attendants and introduced the agenda of the meeting.

Achievements & Minutes of the Board

Achievements according to Task List

The achievements were reviewed:

  • The Foundation News have been published in a
    • Short version
      • DESY Bulletin
      • to GDE (via B. Foster)
      • to XFEL (via M. Altarelli)
    • Long version
      • on own website including presentations and minutes
      • CERN Courier
      • to JP- and US-Fora with a special accompanying letter
      • to CB (used by some members to inform their national ministries of science and industry)

In this context the CB decided to send a list of contacts (ministries, institutes, companies) to the Spokesperson. In addition, it was emphasised that all CB members should inform their own national ministries and funding agencies about the Forum and should express their strong interest in XFEL and ILC, respectively. It was pointed out that one should actually focus on XFEL. Especially the non-German companies are asked to state their interest, since the contributions of their governments are not clear yet.

It was decided to create a “map of interests”, i.e. a matrix of fields of scientific/commercial interest vs. European nations in order to create a “common understanding” in a diplomatic way.

The following aspects concerning the realisation of the XFEL were discussed:

  • The funding of XFEL has to be assured as soon as possible to guarantee reliability of the timeline.
  • It is crucial to immediately start support for XFEL at the political level. XFEL must not loose time against competing projects
  • The efforts to convince political decision makers should focus on the benefits for industry, above all on the issues of job creation and technology transfer. Scientific arguments alone might not be sufficient.
  • XFEL might pave the ground for ILC in the same way as JET has been the reference for ITER.
  • To succeed the efforts must be coordinated. One has to decide who can do what.
  • How to deal with countries like the Netherlands which are not taking part in XFEL, but whose companies might me interested and interesting suppliers?

Next, different funding options for the XFEL were under discussion.

The CB decided to invite the chairman of AFI-XFEL for discussion and first-hand information about the current status. It was emphasised that such a meeting has to be prepared carefully (choose adequate sample of companies, develop good questions etc. till end of January 2006). On the basis of the outcome of that meeting the CB will see whether EIFast could supply any additional arguments to the discussion of AFI..

The question was raised how the involvement of smaller and medium sized companies should be handled. Suggestions comprised:

  • Contact AiF to promote involvement of German SMEs
  • Contact EARTO to motivate participation of non-German SMEs
  • Identify “big players” which have already shown their interest. They have to collaborate in networks with SMEs. Since XFEL consists of many different sub-packages, it is possible to set up consortia which cover special areas in a natural way.

CG Meeting 20.09.2005

The minutes of the CG Meeting 20.09.2005 were unanimously accepted by the CB.

Board Meeting 27.10.2005

The minutes of the Board Meeting 27.10.2005 were unanimously accepted by the CB.

Review of the Foundation Meeting 27. October 2005

Publication and information (CERN, newspapers, web sites…)

It was proposed to ask institutes and companies to have a short notice of the Foundation of the Forum on their websites.

Concerning the approach of newspapers, two questions arose:

  • What type of papers should be addressed?
  • Who will pay for possible fees?

Minutes of the Plenary meeting

The following minor changes to the minutes of the Plenary meeting were suggested:

  • Replace Thales by Thales Electron Devices
  • Replace FR by DE for Gerhard Huisken in the list of participants (Appendix B).


Progress and Process of MoU signing

It was reported that 11 companies and 1 institute have signed the MoU so far.

Companies involved in the Forum (identification & approach of potential members)

The CB agreed to observe the progress of MoU signing. If necessary, CB members should promote the process by prompting appropriate companies to sign.

Business plan for the Forum

The discussion of the business plan for the Forum was postponed till a realistic funding option has been agreed upon.


Job description for the Spokesperson

The CB suspected that the proposed job description for the Spokesperson might be too ambitious and emphasised that the role of the national CB members may even be more important (see 6. c.). As a result the issue of a Spokesperson appears to be somewhat relaxed.

It was felt that the title of a General Secretary may be more appropriate rather than that of a Spokesperson. He must at times have the ability to be an “annoying” person who is willing to push the national members. It was added that the Spokesperson should also act as a “Liaison Officer” to the projects

Identification and addressing a Spokesperson

Two candidates were proposed:

  • Doug Clunie from HPRF
  • George Faillon from Thales Electron Devices (retired).

Role of CB members in supporting Spokesperson’s efforts

The national members have to play a strong role as politics is a national issue. The CB should identify special working areas and check who can cover them. In the following, corresponding working groups may be built. In this way the Spokesperson will be relieved.

PR concept

The CB agreed on “European Industry Forum for Accelerators with SCRF Technology” (EIFast) as the new Forum’s name, which leads to a unique and memorable abbreviation (only 37 google entries).

The proposed logo should be supplemented with an outline map of Europe, instead of using stars. Furthermore, it was proposed to include the Forum’s full name.

Development of PR concept (on European and regional scale)

Different aspects of the PR concept were under discussion.

  1. Basic
    • Perfect Talk:
      • Should be divided into logical parts (Background, Status of SCRF projects etc.)
      • A download possibility for CB members is required
    • Brochure:
      • A brochure may be modelled after the ITER/EFDA brochure
      • An involvement of the XFEL PR may be problematic owing to the fact that the TDR for XFEL has to be prepared till summer 2006
      • As a first step a “working document” should be created, the development of a flyer has priority
  2. Member info
    • Newsletter: The proposal of a regular newsletter was rejected. Information will only be provided on demand.
  3. Public info
    • No central PR action is planned. Instead, press articles should be released on demand by the national CB members.

The CB should consider both the LINAC conference in Knoxville and the ILC meeting in Bangalore as possible platforms to present EIFast. In addition, the CB is asked to check whether participation in ESOF2006, Munich is sensible.

Role of CB members in supporting PR efforts

A “hotline” to GDE-Europe (B. Foster) and to XFEL (Altarelli) as well as to other projects (BESSY-FEL) should be created in order to keep the CB up-to-date. In general, the Spokesperson and the CB should establish a close contact with project people in order to work for their needs.

Future funding and EU Approach

Overview on possible resources (including “sponsored” resources)

Three basic options concerning the funding of the Spokesperson’s work and the Forum Office (FO) were discussed. All Board members – whether present at the discussion or not –are asked to state explicitly their position towards these options:

  1. Only EU-Funding
    • A funding under CARE could be possible according to EU officials.
    • Drawbacks
      • Would demand a legal entity of the Forum
      • Would be somewhat in “disguise” as Care’s aims are different than the Forum’s
      • Might not cover all needed expenditures
  2. Direct payment by institute(s)/company(ies)
    • One or more institutes or companies pay for all expenditures, e.g. DESY optionally plus e.g. Accel, BNN and/or all others who are able to pay (some institutes are not able to pay) contribute
    • Drawbacks
      • Problem of acceptance:
        • could generate fear of national/individual dominance/interests
        • “No pay, no say” will not work
      • Balance between cooperation and competition may be disturbed
  3. Spokesperson and FO as in-kind contribution for 1 year
    • The Spokesperson and the FO functions are fully sponsored in-kind by the institute/company of the current Spokesperson. The office of the Spokesperson rotates each year.
    • Drawbacks: Problems of acceptance and balance as above.

One way to deal with the issues of mistrust or lacking acceptance and to overcome the fear of abusing the office in favour of a single party is to limit the expectations of the Forum. By concentrating on non-competitive tasks the acceptance of the chairperson may be enhanced.

If the dilemma of paying can not be resolved, the appointment of a CB member to serve as Spokesperson may provide another alternative (see 3.). In this case the job of the Spokesperson must rotate every year to guarantee neutrality. In addition, the Spokesperson’s nationality should also rotate as far as possible.

Progress & Strategy for EU contact

Not discussed, as reliable contacts are still sought.


European Particle Accelerator Conference, Edinburgh 2006

The CB decided that the Forum should not be represented by an own booth. Instead, the participating companies should each host a small Forum representation (Logo, major objectives, etc.) on their booths. Therefore it is necessary to prepare more information material (Terms of reference, flyer, etc.) till February 2006. In this context M. Dykes was asked to check if a flyer can be included to participants materials.

XFEL workshop Spring 2006 (proposed)

Several questions and tasks concerning the XFEL workshop were discussed.

  • Title? Proposal: ”XFEL - opportunities for European Industry”
  • Find date till end of January 2006 (avoid coincidence with the soccer world cup)
  • Announce the workshop till January 2006
  • The detailed programme/plan has to be prepared till February 2006
  • Apart from presentations addressing special topics, there should be a poster session by companies (fee?). The HASYLAB user meeting may provide an example in this respect.
  • Try to attract many national industries (which should state their interest to their national ministries afterwards)
  • Enable discussion on tendering
  • Include visit to TTF?
  • It was decided not to invite the US and Japanese Industrial fora, although the expertise of some non-European companies may be necessary.

Two options concerning the operational structure of the workshop were considered:

  • Use the full morning to present the technology (plenary). Afterwards there may be sessions and presentations dealing with special topics (“face to face discussions”).
  • Start late in the morning and have a “walking dinner” in order to limit travel time.

The ITER workshop may serve as model.

Any other business

Next Forum Plenary meeting

Possible dates for the next Forum Plenary meeting should be fixed after the XFEL workshop. If necessary, the XFEL workshop may be used as a platform (for e.g. election of Spokesperson)

ITER Workshop Barcelona

  1. Ebbinghaus presented the website of the ITER Workshop Barcelona ( and promised to send the corresponding hardcopy brochure to the CB.

EU-FP7 planning

The future European support for ILC and XFEL under FP7 were discussed. In this context the chairman asked whether there would be interest in industry in additional infrastructure for the XFEL at DESY or collaborating institutes (like Test cryostats, Module test stands; Rf test benches ) which would be available for test of equipment of companies. If there would be interest several questions addressing the operation of the test facility have to be clarified:

  • What systems should be used?
  • How can companies participate in detail?
  • What site(s)? (DESY would be a possibility)
  • How to handle the required personnel and know-how

The CB concluded that a test facility has to be beneficial for both companies and institutes., The CB members from industry are asked to opinion on the subject until the next CB meeting.

Next meeting of CB

The next CB meeting will take place at DESY on 22 February 2006, time: 11.00 – 17.00.

Tasks agreed upon

Task Who Dead-line
Send existing list of contacts (ministries, institutes, companies) to Spokesperson CB Jan 06
Inform own national ministries / funding agencies about EIFast CB Jan 06
Inform Spokesperson about contacted persons / institutions CB Always
Prepare Matrix of fields of scientific/commercial interest vs. European nations DESY Jan 06
Discuss possibilities for EIFast input to XFEL committees (AFI etc.) Trines Jan 06
Send addresses of national members in XFEL committees to CB Wurr Jan 06
Check whether EIFast.Flyer can be included to participants materials at EPAC06 – best for free Dykes Feb 06
Check whether own company/institute participates in EPAC06 CB Jan 06
Prepare “Terms of Reference”, Logo and Flyer DESY Feb 06
Prepare “Perfect Talk” divided into logical parts Prüstel Feb 06
Find date for XFEL workshop (2 days) till end of May 06 Trines Jan 06
Announce XFEL workshop DESY Jan 06
Plan detailed programme for XFEL workshop DESY Feb 06
Organise constant flow of current information with ILC and XFEL and other projects (BESSY-FEL Trines Feb 06
Distribute hardcopy of ITER brochure from Barcelona to CB Ebbinghaus Jan 06
Present the 3 funding / Spokesperson options discussed for written decision to all CB members DESY Jan 06
Think about possible demands for test facilities etc. to be financed via the FP7 at e.g. DESY’s site CB Feb 06

Minutes by: Thorsten Prüstel & Karsten Wurr

Last modified 18 years ago Last modified on Feb 10, 2006, 5:16:29 PM