Dear LCTPC friends,

As agreed in our WP meeting of last Thursday Jan 7th, we will have a
special discussion meeting on MONDAY 18 January to prepare for what is
expected from us as input to the timeplan for the end-of-2012 TDR
milestone for ILD.

The exact format of the discussion is still open, but I have setup an
indico page, and EVO/phone meeting, whith info you can find at
http://ilcagenda.linearcollider.org/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=4378

The idea is to have an extended discussion in the morning (9:00 CET
timezone), which should be OK for our Asian colleagues, with a short
summary session at 14:00 CET, to update and discuss with our American
colleagues.

=====

What is expected from us (e-mail by Henri Videau just before X-mas)?
This will be further discussed and any input is welcome. As a start we could
say the following:
In 2012 we will produce a document describing the detector we propose. The
different parts have been identified but they may exist in more than one 
technological version. We would consider as baseline any option which
has been shown to be feasible and to have adequate performances.
You should present, for the different options, what is considered as proofs of
feasibility and the associated milestones.
Aside specific proof elements depending on the sub-detector and the
technology, some general items should be provided with their milestones.
- a full simulation with the right level of details: dead zones,
inefficiencies, inhomogeneity of response, distortions...
- a full reconstruction where the input is proper (for example strips have
to be handled as strips and not points),
- a full integration, the detector has to fit into the envelope defined in
the integration model and to have adequate services, power, cooling, hanging, ..
- a description of the calibration and of the alignment in particular at
the time of push-pull.
As the notion of proof is not universally defined it would be very
valuable to contribute an evaluation procedure.

It would be reasonable to have one speaker per sub-detector who could give
a precise account of the results of the pre-meetings with tasks and milestones.

=======

Please (if possible) give your input to the discussion in (short) e-mails
beforehand.

Best regards,  Jan