Minutes of the Project coordinators meeting on September 23rd, 2019 (DRAFT 1) 1. Part A. [Agenda item #1] Presentation by Dr. Günther Steinmeyer (Project 1.2) Pseudo mode-locking After the talk, Prof. T. Elsaesser asks about the treatment of non-linearities as instantaneous non-linearities, which would be wrong for semi conductors, but probably ok for ring-resonators. Also that one should be careful to claim Dr. G. Steinmeyer agrees that is valid for micro-resonators. Prof. M. Ivanov asks about the terms on one of the equations, and why they are 2,4,2? Dr. G. Steinmeyer answers that these terms have different level of degeneracy, 2 for partially degenerated and 4 for fully degenerated. Dr. M. Wörner mentions that mode locking is a special case of correlation between modes induced by non-linearities. He wonders which is the key to achieve real mode-locking? Dr. G. Steinmeyer explains the example of a ball in a saddle lock, where, if there is friction, the ball will stay centered, otherwise, the ball with dance around. The trick is to have saturable absorption. Dr. S. Sharma asks if in the limit of decoherence, mode-locking will disappear. She also asks if he tried to say that coherence acts like friction? Dr. G. Steinmeyer answers that, in longer calculations, in the frequency picture, coherence goes to 0 at the domain wall. He meant that if there is friction, there is coherence. Dr. T. Nagy asks if 64 terms in the expansion are sufficient? It seems that the drop-off is around 32? The discussion moves on to the next points in the agenda. 2. Part B. [Agenda item #2] Dr. Thomas-Martin Kruel - IT matters [#2.1] - archival system: organization of the initial phase / user experience testing phase (who, when, how long) Dr. Kruel explained that the archival software was a working object at the time of the evaluation, the acceptance was declared on July. There was a 10 days pilot phase, where 23 bugs and issues were solved. However, the quality of the software is still not good enough to commit to it. There is an extended testing phase planned. It was discussed in the IT advisory board, and it will start in November, and will last for 2-3 months until it enters in production. There are some volunteers already, but Dr. Kruel asks for more if someone is interested. Prof. T. Elsaesser asks when can the system taken into production. Dr. Kruel answers that maybe at the end of the year? [#2.2] - data center reconstruction in bldg. C (time line, impact) Dr. Kruel informs that the works will start now, and will affect users at building C. They will start by dismantling the network on Friday after the SAB meeting (15:00 or later). There will be no network and no telephone service during the weekend (Friday, September 27th, 15:00, to Sunday, September 29th). There will be no impact on general IT services, as most services are in building B, but redundancy will be lost. The planned date to move the servers back and bring them back to production is 12th-13th of October. [#2.3] - firewall migration (time line, impact) The migration is taking place between the 3rd and the 6th of October. During this time, networks are unreliable for a few hours. The firewall is being moved together with the FVB services, in a virtualized system within the FVB, but the logic does not change, just the hardware. [Agenda item #3] Other items Dr. O. Kornilov brings up the issue of LabView licenses. Last year it was decided to maintain the joint contract with LabView (20 named licenses), at the price of 550 €/license per year. However, as it was already discussed then, the demand for LabView is decreasing, and the question is again if we should get rid of the contract. 8 licenses could be kept, fixed 2019 version (no upgrades), and without further support. If we would like to purchase again (up to 20 licenses) it would cost 800 € / license per year. Is there still demand of LabView? He will email everyone using LabView to make sure no one needs an upgradeable version. ------------------ Prof. T. Elsaesser discusses the importance to vote on the upcoming DFG elections, as the composition of the DFG evaluation panels is essential for the evaluation of projects and grants. There is an extended discussion on the transparency of the DFG evaluation procedure, and how some projects, even with recommendations from the referees, are rejected by the panel, without option for appeal. Both Prof. S. Eisebitt and Prof. T. Elsaesser agree that it would be a good idea to collect letters and reports of rejection to document the typical issues, for future submissions. ------------------ Prof. S. Eisebitt points out that there is a lot of overhead money, around 2.3 M€. He mentions that this money should be used, as it looks bad on a political scale, specially when justifying money transfer from year to year. ------------------ Prof. S. Eisebitt informs that the Direktorium discussed about making PhD students use the NovaTime to make sure they are at the institute during core hours. The directors feel it might help to keep students working in a regular fashion, but it might be tricky with the 75% working load of students. Prof. T. Elsaesser points out that this is not to measure working hours of students, but just to make sure they are here from 10 to 15. There is always the concern that PhD students take longer and longer to finish. Prof. G. Steinmeyer asks if part time technicians are also on the NovaTime system? The answer is yes. He also mentions that some flexibility should be possible with this system. Dr. O. Kornilov wonders if this system is a good idea, as it might motivate students to work for the hours, and not for the research project. Prof. S. Eisebitt mentions that this will be discussed with the PhD students. Prof. O. Smirnova asks if maybe we should not look for other ways to motivate students. Prof. T. Elsaesser discusses that the MBI is liable on using the MBI budget, and PhD students, 30-40 people, paid 75% of salary, are not checked if they deliver. He mentions that there is no legal justification not to check. He also points out that the situation with grad students is getting worse over the last 10 years. He points out that in many cases he has troubles to find the students when they should be here. Dr. O. Kornilov discusses that these are 2 very different reasons, the legal aspect vs the communication aspect. He doubts that imposing working hours would improve the situation. He mentions that in his group they hold Monday meetings, to organize the working week, and who is doing what. Prof. M. Ivanov mentions that this measure (time check) might solve the legal problem, but it will not help with the motivation. Prof. T. Elsaesser also points out that, compared with PhD students in university, students here are quite privileged financially, and that they should also be responsible for their own career. Prof. O. Smirnova agrees that some people behave like that, and wonders if there is something that can be done for example at the interview level? She also mentions that it might be seen as a punishment for the motivated students, who have to have another administrative hurdle, because of the unmotivated ones. Prof. T. Elsaesser mentions that also the application process itself is also getting more complicated, as, for example, he received 120 applications in the last call, with no more than 1 good applicant. ------------------ Dr. O. Kornilov asked if there were any news from the evaluation. Prof. S. Eisebitt answered that nothing so far. The meeting adjourned. Minutes prepared by F. Morales on November 11, 2019