Minutes of the meeting held on 7/ 7/1961 at Charles House, Regent St, London SW1

• Present
  • Sir William Penney (Chair)
  • Dr J B Adams
  • Dr R A Buckingham
  • Sir John Cockcroft
  • Dr J Howlett
  • Mr C Jolliffe
  • Professor T Kilburn
  • Professor R E Peierls
  • Dr T G Pickavance
  • Sir Graham Sutton
• Alternates Present
  • Dr S Hollingdale representing Mr M J Lighthill
  • Dr W Marshall representing Dr F A Vick
  • Dr E N Mutch representing Dr M V Wilkes
• Secretary
• Apologies
  • Sir Harrie Massey
  • Dr J C Kendrew

1 The Scope of the Committee's Work

The Chairman opened the meeting by reviewing broadly some of the things which he suggested the Committee should do, and some which they should not.

1. The Institute has accepted the task of providing and operating an Atlas Computer and it was the clear task of the Committee to supervise and control this activity.
2. In the meantime, before the NIRNS Atlas was in use, which might be in early 1964, the AEA has been asked by the Secretary of the Minister for Science's office, if they could arrange for some university use of their large computers, e.g. the 7090 at Risley and the Stretch expected at Aldermaston in May 1962. The Authority has agreed in principle. The arrangements for implementing this scheme were not complete but the Committee might be able to help in framing them and perhaps in operating the scheme.
3. He did not regard it as part of the Committee's job to review university requirements for computers. The University Grants Committee has recently reviewed requirements for computers costing up to £0.5M and has recommended the allocation of five KDF9 machines. A review on a broader scale has been made six months or so ago by the Minister for Science's office, and recently the Royal Society has set up a committee to review university requirements as a whole. Sir William thought that the report of the Royal Society Committee would be sent to the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy.
4. There was a considerable common membership between the Royal Society Committee just mentioned and the NIRNS Committee, but to clarify further the division of responsibility, Sir William suggested that one joint meeting of the two committees would be helpful. One special point which might be discussed at such a joint meeting was the financing of large university computers. At present, those costing up to £0.5M were being dealt with by the University Grants Committee, but the Royal Society Committee, which would presumably initiate recommendations for larger ones, was not linked with a source of funds.

In discussion, there was no dissent from the above suggestions. One question raised was whether there should be some further review of the Authority. It was agreed that this question should be raised at the proposed joint meeting with the Royal Society Committee.

2 Name and Terms of Reference

It was agreed to call the committee the NIRNS Atlas Computer Committee. The following terms of reference were agreed:

Subject to the general authority of the Governing Board of the Institute, to control the provision, operation and use of the NIRNS Atlas Computer

3 Developments to Date

The documents enclosed with paper NI/ACC/61/1 as well as NI/ACC/61/2 were taken as read. The Chairman referred briefly to the latest position as reported in NI/ACC/61/3. Two points arose in discussion of the basis for charging:

1. The expected agreement with the Treasury that use by university scientists should be free might be held to leave out, for example, some university economics research or data processing by educational departments. It was agreed that the Secretary should either have the words altered to refer to research use by universities or see that it was agreed not to interpret the words in such a way as to exclude any university research suitable for the Atlas.
2. The proposal that use of the AEA and Government Departments should be paid for was questioned, but it was agreed that this was a finance matter which the Treasury had the right to decide.

4 Proposal on the Operation of the Computer - NI/61/11

The following points were made in the course of a detailed discussion of the proposals drafted by the Chairman and Dr Pickavance in paper NI/61/11:

1. In the light of later information reported in paper NI/ACC/61/3, the estimated cost given at the end of paragraph 2 of the paper should be amended to £3.4M, and the estimated completion date should be given as toward the end of 1963.
2. The suggestion of a staff of 4 in the mathematics group seemed low, but the division between the mathematics group and the computing services group would depend very much on the head of the Laboratory. The number 4 was suggested on the basis that the mathematics group would be concerned with general development and experimental work on the fullest use of the machine, and not at all with programming particular problems. Even so, it might be low.
3. Some users would welcome the inclusion of a large group to work on mathematical development suited to particular major uses. The Meteorological Office for instance would like some basic work to be done on the calculus of finite differences with the object of improving the methods available for computer solution of meteorological problems, thus allowing the meteorological staff to concentrate on the physics rather than on the mathematics.

   The general feeling of the meeting was, however, that a very large staff would be needed to give an effective service of the kind described, since many of the mathematical problems tended to be different for each user. The Laboratory's mathematics group would, of course, be interested in such problems and apply their effort to the greatest general advantage, but it was thought that it would be better generally for users themselves to undertake the special mathematical developments for their particular requirements.

4. Similarly, in the case of data processing, it was thought most efficient for users to deal with their own particular requirements. Bubble Chamber users were quoted as a typical example of a group who were already arranging to do so. It was important to arrange that the computer took the problem as far as possible, i.e. to produce a simple answer rather than to create a mass of results which required further analysis.
5. The total number suggested for the Laboratory was thought to be about right. Professor Kilburn said that he expected to have a total of 36 on the first Atlas at Manchester when it was in operation (on a 24-hour basis) in about a year's time. (About 5 to 8 of these would correspond as far as he could judge with the mathematics group as proposed in our case.)
6. The 5 scientific staff shown in the machine group included a computer manager (a very responsible post), and 3 shift supervisors, who would probably be in the Experimental Officer Class.
7. With reference to the organisation proposed in the paper, Dr Pickavance pointed out that it was proposed that the head of the Laboratory would report directly to the NIRNS Atlas Computer Committee, and not, for example, through the Director of the Rutherford Laboratory. The proposal that administrative services should be provided by the Rutherford Laboratory was questioned but it was decided to leave points of this kind for consideration after appointment of the head of the Laboratory. It was agreed that detailed proposals on the delegation of financial powers would have to be made. These would include certain powers for the head of the Laboratory with higher limits after consulting the Chairman of the NIRNS Atlas Computer Committee. Still larger amounts would go through the NIRNS General Purpose Committee.
8. Building plans were being prepared by the architects. Some discussion with Ferranti's on the building requirements for the machine had already taken place, and there was to be a further discussion on 19th July. It was agreed that sketch plans would be circulated to the Committee for comment. Accommodation for about 30 visitors was planned and the Committee thought this about right.
9. After a discussion of the proposed Users Committee, it was agreed that some such committee would almost certainly be set up by the head of the Laboratory to help him to meet the users' needs to the greatest possible extent. The sort of committee in mind would be similar to the Rutherford Laboratory Visiting Committee, dealing not with actual scheduling, but also the arrangements for allocating time and for providing for visitors. One difference from the Visiting Committee would be that owing to the probably very large numbers of users, the Committee would not include a large proportion of them. Presumably, there would be arrangements for users with a special interest at any particular time to attend a meeting by invitation of the Chairman.

   It was finally agreed that at the moment there was no need for such a committee in addition to the Atlas Computer Committee itself. It was agreed that for the benefit of the probably large number of small users the procedure for requesting and allocation of computer time should be simple and fairly cut-and-dried.

   The proper route for any complaints concerning unsatisfactory services would be first to the head of the Laboratory and, if the user was not satisfied after this, to the Atlas Computer Committee.

10. The question of the siting of the computer was considered to be outside the terms of reference of the Committee, the Board having agreed to the Harwell site after considering the many complex questions involved.
11. After discussion, it was agreed that it would be right to make no charge for university research use of the computer. This decision might have slight repercussions on university use of the Manchester Atlas, for which Professor Kilburn said there would have to be a small charge of the order of £50 per hour to cover, for example, the cost of magnetic tape. It was agreed that where the expense could be well forecast, there should not be much difficulty in financing it. Mr Jolliffe said that the DSIR had already made several grants including provision for such expenditure.
12. The full charge for time on the Atlas, including amortization of the capital cost, was expected to be somewhere between £350 and £750 per hour. It was important to establish the charge in good time, so that paying users, such as the AEA, could make provision for the considerable sums involved.

    In reply to a question, the Secretary said that he did not think that the accounting arrangements would be such as to expose the Laboratory to the temptation to allocate more time to paying users when short of funds. He expected that any extra receipts would go to the Treasury.

5 The Head of the Laboratory

The Chairman said that he thought that the key post of head of the Atlas Laboratory should be advertised, and this was agreed. After some discussion, it was also agreed that the post should be one on the permanent staff of the NIRNS at the NIRNS equivalent of the Civil Service Deputy Chief Scientific Officer.

The NIRNS follow AEA salaries and conditions generally. Posts equivalent to the Civil Service DCSO are described as first Senior staff appointments. The salaries are individually assessed within a range starting at £3350. This is higher than the bottom of the DCSO range because AEA and NIRNS staff have to pay superannuation contributions. The Committee instructed the Secretary to arrange for the advertisement of the post in this salary band.

The Chairman, Professor Kilburn, Professor Peierls and Dr Pickavance were invited to form a panel to consider the applications received and to make recommendations.

6 Forecast of Requirements for Atlas Time

It was agreed to defer consideration of quantitative forecasts of requirements to the next meeting and it was recognised that such forecasts would be extremely rough at this stage. Members who felt able to make any forecasts before the next meeting were invited to send them to the Secretary for circulation.

It was agreed that it would be premature to announce the intended setting up of the Laboratory publicly, for example, by a notice in Nature, in advance of approval by the Treasury, but Dr Howlett and the Secretary were asked to keep the Inter-Universities Committee on Computers, and the Royal Society Committee informed of the position.

7 Future Meetings

The Secretary was asked to try to fix the second meeting during the second half of October. the Committee would then consider the frequency of meetings and try to fix dates for a year ahead.