UCOP "looks forward" to the quarterly BOG meetings, as well as "all the subcommittees" in Triad
Anyone that was under the delusion that removal of LANS would be a reduction in parent organization oversight and thus an improvement in lab governance just got a wake up call from UCOP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bzGGKoeDHY&feature=youtu.be&t=8846
9 comments:
Not surprising that Budil and her office would use this to create twice as large a budget with twice as many people. Listen to the audio and that is what Tauscher said, that there will now be twice as many meetings and twice as much work. Since LLNS/LANS was the exact same organization and now Triad will be a new one to operate, this must somehow make sense on some level.
The difference is LANS had a different culture, it was about profit. TRIAD is non-profit. In case you had not noticed before 2006 UC ran the labs very well as a non-profit, so we know non-profit works.
"The difference is LANS had a different culture, it was about profit. TRIAD is non-profit. In case you had not noticed before 2006 UC ran the labs very well as a non-profit, so we know non-profit works."
Correct. So on what basis should LLNS (half of LANSLLNS), also all about profit, retain the contract to manage LLNL? Does the NNSA need more evidence that the West Coast version of LANS does not make sense either, or will the NNSA elect wait for additional leadership failures to make that determination while paying an operations premium in the meantime to do so?
The question whether Triad is "profit" or "nonprofit" is not yet answered, nor is the question of which status they are registering under.
The fact that Triad selected a ".org" domain name for its website is a hint. This domain was originally intended for non-profit entities, but this restriction was not enforced and has been removed. The domain is commonly used by non-profits and communities, but also by some for-profit entities. So they have options.
In fact the very worst years at LANL were under the non-profit UC. Nanos. Before you falsely claim that Nanos was forced on UC look up the record. UC defended Nanos long after everyone petitioned to get rid of the fool.
In fact the very worst years at LANL were under the non-profit UC. Nanos. Before you falsely claim that Nanos was forced on UC look up the record. UC defended Nanos long after everyone petitioned to get rid of the fool.
July 24, 2018 at 9:59 PM
Got to disagree with you on this. Most people at LANL who went through both Nanos and LANS all agree LANS was wors, particularly the years 2006-2013. You obviously had not been around when Nanos was at LANL nor when LANS was around. There was a about 2-3 weeks during the Nanos time
right after he shut down the lab, however it was quickly found out that the disk never existed and that was it for Nanos, no one paid attention to anything he had to say after that and everybody new he was leaving which he did about a year latter. LANS on the other hand went on for years and years.
Also the rumors rampant that UC was totally against Nanos from the very start. Anyone who knew anyone at the UC campuses new this. UC was actually the ones that forced him out in the end. I am guessing you where not around the Nanos years and are trying to do revisionist history. You will not find anyone at LANL who believes your narrative of things. You have a personal issue with UC which prevents you from seeing things rationally. Heck I bet you actually really like Nanos and his anti LANL anti scientists attacks.
July 25, 2018 at 10:38 AM
Having gone through both periods, mostly agree with you. Nanos was bad, but was brief and also not the worst. The worst was under LANS, but at the end not the start. LANS 2007-2011 was really not all that bad, however LANS 2012-2018 was in all regards a miserable time.
Around 2011 was when all the original LANS managers sent to LANL gave up and quit or were replaced after not "solving" LANL's problems. The next LANS team was mostly there unwillingly and resented their posting, taking it out on the "locals."
Post a Comment