European approval calendar: ECFA meetings in Sept and Nov – first one is

1. European approval calendar: ECFA meetings in Sept and Nov – first one is closed, and the Nov. meeting is open. Nakada Com. report in Sept, discuss, and maybe meet (closed) again in Oct. Decision is due at the Nov 28 th meeting. Expectations are that it will be positive. Then the game shifts to the CERN Strategy Group, (CSG).

2. CERN Strategy Group: This group is now in place – secretary Steinar Stapness visited Italy and spent a day at Frascati with Panta et al, and a day and a bit with Roberto Petronzio and Marcello Giorgi. CSG Secretariat (Secretary, ECFA chair, SPC chair, representative for Laboratory Directors , and work closely with the CERN DG) A posiitve visit. He was impressed by his Frascati visit, and the investment in the beam tests there, and with the results so far.

3. CSG (2): This group will meet in Sept., Dec 10 and again in March. Petronzio will make a presentation on the Italian political situation, how he sees the financing, and the overall management of the project. There will probably be presentations requests for the Dec. meeting, but the gap between the ECFA meeting (Nov 28) and the Dec meeting is not long enough to get reports to the committee in time for deliberations and for decisions. Expect a positive decision at the March, 2009 meeting.

4. The output from the Dorfan mini-MAC review was positive -no big problems of principle, lots of work to do, and long list of homework assigned, and a meeting in Jan proposed. Great enthusiasm by the collective wisdom of the reviewers.

5. Mini-MAC Committee • Klaus Balewski (DESY) • John Corlett (LBNL) • Jonathan Dorfan (SLAC, Chair) • Tom Himel (SLAC/on sabbatical at DESY) • Claudio Pellegrini (UCLA) • Daniel Schulte (CERN) • Ferdi Willeke (BNL, by phone) • Andy Wolski (Liverpool) • Frank Zimmermann (CERN) (Stuart Henderson was unable to attend)

6. Recent talks on SuperB at the mini-MAC meeting: https://agenda.infn.it/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=711 Marcello Giorgi’s presentation on the physics requirements on the accelerator, and John Seeman’s presentation on the design of the machine and the summary slides of the mini-MAC meeting as presented by Jonathan Dorfan.

7. Stapness, during his Italian visit ,offered ‘CERN’ help in organizing a general meeting – a workshop of those interested in flavor physics in Europe. [this by way of assuring the CSG that there will be a strong European presence on the Superb project.] INFN is expected to roll out the project management in the next weeks, and to try to move ahead with TDR activity on all three fronts – the accelerator design, - detector design and - development of the Tor Vergata site.

8. We hear that DOE/OHEP is sympathetic to SuperB and the flavour physics community - that has worked hard and well on Babar, but there is not likely to be a decision before they know the 2009 budget, and in an election year, this is probably spring ’09, or even summer. Probably a positive decision from the CERN Strategy Group will also be required. Remember that Ray Orbach’s tenure in Office of Science ends with the new president taking office. We have to play that timing correctly. I suppose the Italian government decision is not expected before summer of 2009.

9. US Community focus: Work on aspects of the TDR on the accelerator design and on the detector R&D and design; [please think about getting involved, and talk to the appropriate people !] Prepare R&D proposals for a SuperB effort; And be in good communication with your contact within DOE/OHEP, letting them know of your interest in SuperB in Italy.

10. General Comments–from the mini-MAC report • Very exciting project -- Committee is exhilarated by the challenge • Physics requirement of 10**36 cm-2 sec-1 or 75 ab-1/5yr is very demanding • Requirement of polarization potentially adds complexity • Imaginative and ambitious design -- Committee endorses the design approach. Design offers flexibility to either raise the luminosity or compensate for surprises • Excellent work by a relatively small group, many of whom have full-time “day jobs” • Seeman’s summary – “areas for further concentration”: Committee agrees these cover most of the essential tasks needed before the design can be fully vetted at the performance requirements

11. Recommendations – from the mini-MAC report • Committee considers the SINGLE MOST ESSENTIAL ingredient for moving forward is the formation of a sanctioned management structure which formally incorporates a dedicated machine design team. The team members must have the strong support of their home institutions to work on the design. The team needs a designated leader, who is as close to full time as is possible • The project is in need of a formal baseline which is managed with change control tools. This cannot be accomplished successfully without the management structure

12. Next Steps for Near-term Work – from the mini-MAC report • The Committee sees no glaring showstoppers with respect to achieving the design performance. However, in several key areas, more work is needed before the design can be blessed • The Committee, in consultation with the SuperB team, established a list of topics that are essential for the team to address before the Mini-MAC will be in a position to state with confidence that the machine can achieve its physics goals. It is the Committee’s opinion that these items can be prioritized in such a way that the machine feasibility can be judged six months from now (This assumes that the management structure is formed by late September and that more resources are provided)