Another possibility would be in the DC area, before or after the Gordon Conference on Atomic Physics (June 11-16, 2017, Newport, RI). Maybe even between DAMOP and the Gordon Conference... Greetings from Hannover,
Christian On 19.12.2016 22:08, Slichter, Daniel H. (Fed) via ARTIQ wrote: > We had some brief discussions on this subject at the NIST group meeting > today, with responses inline below: > >> * Venue? some ideas: NIST, JQI, DESY, Oxford, CERN, Warsaw University of >> Technology, Chinese University of Hong Kong. > We strongly prefer a location inside the US (much easier to arrange travel > and bring a larger group). It seems that JQI would be a good potential > location because: > - relatively easy to get to DC area from Europe, Colorado, east coast -- > close to "center of mass" for likely attendees (sorry Sebastien!) > - likely we would want to invite funding agencies to observe/participate, so > holding meeting in the DC area makes their participation more likely > - ARL and JQI are two major funding/development drivers at present so it is a > natural location > >> * It would be convenient to have it before or after an existing physics >> conference (e.g. APS DAMOP 2017 is June 5-9 in Sacramento, CA) > This might increase attendance (although is relatively immaterial for > Creotech/WUT + M-Labs), but I think people tend to be pretty wiped out after > a major conference so I don't think it's necessarily a big plus. One > possibility, especially if we are interested in involving funding agents, > would be to hold it immediately before/after an IARPA LogiQ Technical > Exchange meeting, for example. This would probably gather more of the > relevant players than DAMOP as well. It would also make travel to/from the > conference more cost-effective for ARTIQ users which are LogiQ > performers/support teams (e.g. NIST, JQI, Duke, Georgia Tech, etc). > >> * What would you like to see at such a conference? > I can identify several areas in which such a conference could be useful, > which I list roughly in order of priority: > - discussing and refining plans for future ARTIQ development -- along the > lines of the discussions at the quarterly site visits during the past NIST > contracts > - tutorials/workshops (ideally also webcast/recorded) -- to help give > structural and practical information and introduction to main features of > ARTIQ, including new features such as DRTIO > - securing additional funding -- demonstrating to funding agents that the > ARTIQ user community is broad-based and that ARTIQ enables important work > could unlock additional funding for developing next-generation capabilities > - building user community -- bringing new users onboard, creating links and > collaborations between groups, finding areas of interest for joint funding of > specific developments, etc. > - sharing results -- reports on experiments/techniques performed with ARTIQ > (especially if ARTIQ is an enabling technology) > >> * Would you present something? > Depending on the structure and goals of the conference, the NIST group would > likely be interested in presenting as appropriate. > >> * Would you attend a conference if it were on your continent? Another >> continent? > NIST in-person attendance would probably be very continent-dependent, with a > strong preference for North America. The cost and red tape for international > travel would make it prohibitive to bring a sizeable NIST contingent to a > non-US location. > > Best, > Daniel > _______________________________________________ > ARTIQ mailing list > https://ssl.serverraum.org/lists/listinfo/artiq _______________________________________________ ARTIQ mailing list https://ssl.serverraum.org/lists/listinfo/artiq
