The term “acquisition of beamlines” is used (e.g. 3.4.2), which suggests an “off-the-shelf” approach. This “acquisition” flavour seems to be at odds with the bold goals of 1 nm, 0.1 eV imaging and spectroscopy, which demands new approaches and step-changes in performance. While the emphasis is undoubtedly to contain costs and timelines, this seems to down-play the continuation of beamline and technique development that has opened up new science and application areas and has been a hallmark of the NSLS. This proud history needs to be captured and used as a springboard to greater things to come. Perhaps recognition in the plan is needed that separates “beamline construction” (standard configurations, bounded costs and timelines) from “end-station development” (innovative extension of capabilities, or radically new approaches). The objective (3.3.4) of “deliver new technologies to user community to enhance their capabilities” is not clear and may mean conventional approaches on a brighter accelerator, or it may also include other step-change innovation elsewhere. The opportunity must not be missed to build on established BNL expertise to yield greatly enhanced beamline capability that go far beyond what a brighter beam alone may achieve. It is encouraging to see reference to source development, fundamental to NSLS-II performance. Less encouraging is the lack of mention of the BNL detectors laboratory, a clear advantage of the NSLS in the world of synchrotrons. The concept that 10% of certain beamline construction budgets spend on new advanced detector approaches integrated into the beamline can improve beamline throughput by a factor 10 has been missed. The leading efforts of the in-house NSLS/BNL detectors group is a wonderful competitive advantage that NSLS-II can enjoy if it is recognized and properly supported. Aside from the logic of capitalizing on the local competitive advantage of detector development at BNL, I would also list it under the classes of activities listed under “attracting and sustaining top talent” in the section 4.1 Overview. I liked the photo of the rainbow emanating from the NSLS (p. 37) …

- Chris Ryan

Dear Dr. Ravel, I salute you sir, and your team, for putting in the sheer amount of effort required to generate that massive block of text. It was riddled with catchphrases and buzzwords, and wouldn't have been out of place in a 'Dilbert' comic, but we both know that's not your fault; it's just the way things are when you deal with government. Although, to be honest, it's not obvious who is impressed by throwing around words like Excellence, Innovation, and so on at this point - everyone knows it's just what you have to say. It's sad to see words that once meant something reduced to the level of "Best regards" or "Welcome to Mc______". Really, does someone exist, somewhere in the depths of bureaucracy who looks at these things and says "They're committed to excellence? AND innovation? Hot damn, better fund these people!" I doubt it. And at times it must seem like an endless, pointless grind churning out mission statements and visions for things whose purpose is really pretty simple - our old machine is too old and too small and we need a better one or we won't be able to keep working. So I hope you know that there are people out here who appreciate the work that you and your colleagues do, coming between us and this mind-numbing wall of gibberish. Without you there to interface between us and this, this byzantine system of polite, meaningless superlatives we would never be able to get anything done. For what it's worth I'm sure the NSLS-II will be an excellent facility, and I am very much looking forward to it coming on-line. I wish you all the best in the next phases of the design process, and my hopes for all our sakes that the project finishes on time, as promised, and under budget. I remain sir, your obedient servant, A.

27 JANUARY 2010 THE EMAIL MESSAGE BELOW WAS SENT TO ALD STEVE DIERKER ON OCTOBER 7, 2009 IN RESPONSE TO HIS REQUEST FOR INPUT ON THE DRAFT OF THE LIGHT SOURCES DIRECTORATE STRATEGIC PLAN [THE ONE DATED SEPTEMBER 2009] I AM INSTALLING THIS INPUT ON THE COMMENT WEB PAGE SO THAT IT WILL REACH A WIDER AUDIENCE. TO DATE, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY FEEDDBACK FROM DR. DIERKER REGARDING MY COMMENTS. BOB LIEBERMANN Dear Steve: Thanks for sharing the DRAFT of the Light Sources Directorate Strategic Plan [dated Sept 2009] with the members of the BSA Science & Technology Steering Committee [STSC]. You asked us to send you any comments we might have as you are reviewing and revizing this document, before you officially adopt it and communicate it more broadly. Here are my comments: General remarks: As you state below, this draft is a high-level, over-arching document which aims at outlining the vision and mission of the Directorate. It is gratifying to see all of the elements in one document and I commend you and your staff for synthesizing many varied inputs and in producing this draft. That having been said, I found that the Strategic Plan primarily endorses "motherhood and apple pie" and uses far too much DOE-speak for my taste [to wit, the utilization of the Strategic Focus Area (SFA) framework for the report--see p. 2]. While this format may please the DOE managers, it is less likely to capture the interest of the large user communities, especially those that now exploit the NSLS and hopefully will want to exploit the enhanced facilities of NSLS-II. In any case, it is important to disseminate this Strategic Plan at the earliest possible juncture widely among the user communities of the NSLS and NSLS-II. More importantly, it is imperative that these User Communities be engaged in the development of the Science Facilities Plan [SFP], which is discussed on p. 12 of the Draft. As I understand it, to date this plan has only involved the staff of the Directorate, which is surely too narrow a base. More detailed comments follow: p. 1. The projections for growth of the Directorate listed here seem unrealiistic to me. Growth of operationsl funding from $40M/yr for NSLS to $200M/yr for NSLS-II is very ambitious, inasmuch as the APS budget is currently circa $100M/yr. Similarly, growth of staff from 175 to 500 seems a stretch, although if most of the beamlines are to be operatied and staffed by the facility, then such a goal may be necessary. The size of the user community will most likely grow, especially if the target specs are achieved, but growth by 50% is quite high. p. 2. Critical outcomes. Achieving a "...complelling and productive scientific program..." will come not only from the good ideas and science of the BNL staff, but also from the extensive users who bring their own scientific agendas to the facilities. p. 3. As stated, very important to have an effective and ongoing dialogue with the various stakeholders, which must include the user communities. pp. 6-14: Advancing the Frontiers of Science and Technology Connection to grand challenges from DOE, NAS and Biology reports is important and appropriate, although there are surely other scientific challenges and opportunities which will emerge which are not represented in such national reports. p. 7, Programs of JPSI should be intimately related to goals and objectives of NSLS-II, even if from an organizational point of view, JPSI reports to the Director via other channels [i.e., not via the Light Sources Directorate]. p. 12. If the SFP is to "...include a candidate list of beamlines that will indicate one possible arrangements for a fully built-out NSLS-II facility...", then I think that it is essential that the user communities be engaged early in this process lest they feel alienated and that the SFP fails to address the most compelling needs of these communities. pp. 12-13. Additonal beamlines via the DOE-BES funded MIE projects. Hopefully, the selection and review process which leads to decisions on which beamlines are to be put forward in the MIE competition will be more open and transparent than that used for the original 6 Project Beamlines [included the 5 "add-ons"] which were reviewed by the NSLS-II EFAC in May 2008. p. 13. Transfer of selected beamlines and instruments from NSLS to NSLS--II.. Discussions on this topic need to include, from the beginning, a dialogue with the current operators of these beamlines at the NSLS to see if they are interested and willing to have their instruments/equipment transferred to NSLS--II. p. 13. Engaging the user communities via the BATs is useful and appropriate, but the outreach to the user communities should not be limited to these BATs exclusively. I have concentrated my reading and comments on pp. 1-14, and have not endeavored to comment on Sections 4-7. Section 8 on Fostering Stakeholder Relations. See my other comments above, in particular those related to the user communities for NSLS and NSLS-II. I hope that these comments will be useful to you and your colleagues as you move ahead to revise and disseminate this Strategic Plan for the Light Sources Directorate. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft version. Best regards, Bob Address: Robert C. Liebermann President COMPRES--COnsortium for Materials Properties Research in Earth Sciences ESS Building--Room 167 Stony Brook, NY 11794-2100 Direct Telephone: (631)-632-1968 Office FAX: (631)-632-8140 Email: Robert.Liebermann@stonybrook.edu Home Telephone: (631)-751-3416 Cell Phone: )631)-766-5711

- Bob Liebermann

A great opportunity completely missed in chapter 4 is the potential through collaboration with Stony Brook University and other universities. It should be realized that university groups are not only potential users of the facility, but moreover can contribute to the light sources research and development goals and its scientific advancement. Along the same lines equally important to "recruiting and retaining high quality staff" (4.1) is educating such - but this does not seem to fit in a plan, which reads like that of a business model rather than that of a basic research facility.

- Christian Holzner