<html><body><div style="font-family: tahoma,new york,times,serif; font-size: 14pt; color: #009900"><div><p style="margin: 0px;" data-mce-style="margin: 0px;">Hello,</p><p style="margin: 0px;" data-mce-style="margin: 0px;"> <br></p><p style="margin: 0px;" data-mce-style="margin: 0px;"> With regards to the Hall B gas system, this is to remind you that the detector owner is <em>de facto</em> the system owner of the gas system of that detector, even though the gas system was designed and developed by DSG; e.g. the SVT, which was designed and developed by DSG – DSG staff is not considered to be the system owner of this detector.</p><p style="margin: 0px;" data-mce-style="margin: 0px;"> On October 18, 2016, Patrizia discussed the matter of “system owner for the Hall B gas system” with Stepan, and later on, on Mon. Oct 24 , 2016 there was a brief meeting with Dan and Stepan, where the matter of George Jacobs as system owner of the Hall B gas system was deliberated.</p><p style="margin: 0px;" data-mce-style="margin: 0px;"> The decision was that <em>DSG staff (George and Marc) will support the gas system and train Hall B technicians on the gas system, but will not be considered to be the system owner of the Hall B gas system and will not be on-call.</em> <br></p><p style="margin: 0px;" data-mce-style="margin: 0px;"> To me, these meetings with Hall B regarding the system owner of the Hall B gas system come across as a Markovian process; are such processes ever convergent?<br></p><p style="margin: 0px;" data-mce-style="margin: 0px;"><br></p><p style="margin: 0px;" data-mce-style="margin: 0px;">Amrit</p><p style="margin: 0px;" data-mce-style="margin: 0px;"> </p></div></div></body></html>