[G12] Fwd: g12 review

[Johann Goetz]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dave Ireland <David.Ireland at glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: g12 review
To: Eugene Pasyuk <pasyuk at jlab.org>, Marco Battaglieri <
battaglieri at ge.infn.it>, Keith Griffioen <griff at physics.wm.edu>, Gerald
Gilfoyle <gilfoyle at jlab.org>
Cc: Raffaella De Vita <raffaella.devita at ge.infn.it>, Michael Dugger <
dugger at jlab.org>, Yordanka Ilieva <jordanka at jlab.org>, Lei Guo <
lguo at jlab.org>, Silvia Niccolai <niccolai at ipno.in2p3.fr>, Johann Goetz <
theodore.goetz at gmail.com>


Hi Eugene,

This is very unfortunate. It is a real pity that this was not caught at
the collaboration meeting, but is perhaps another indication of how
difficult the review process is to streamline.

In my view, to benefit from the large amount of work that your committee
has put into this review, I would favour blocking the further progress
of any g12 review (spectroscopy or deep processes) until your committee
has concluded its charge. That way, the collaboration can be assured
that all g12 analyses were treated equally. I hope that a consequence of
this will be to encourage communication within the g12 run group.

I would suggest therefore to put on hold the next round of review for
the time-like compton scattering  analysis. The committee for that
analysis should really benefit from not having to check absolutely all
aspects of the analysis (provided that the g12 folks do things
consistently).

Cheers,

Dave





On 06/30/15 15:09, Eugene Pasyuk wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> It was brought to my attention that while we are working on the g12 run
> group review there is another g12 analysis review ongoing in the deep
> process working group. This is time-like Compton
> scattering.
https://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/shifts/index.php?display=admin&task=paper_review&rid=6996371&operation=view
> This review has started in April of 2015 while the group review has
> started in October 2014.
> Interestingly enough this analysis note has twice as many pages as the
> group one.
>
> To me it looks like a lack of coordination and communication between the
> physics working groups and even within g12 group.
> The whole point of the group review was to avoid duplication of efforts
> in reviewing the same things over and over.
>
> Can anyone comment why did this happen and what are we going to do about
it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Eugene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/g12/attachments/20150630/65f229b4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: David_Ireland.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 369 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/g12/attachments/20150630/65f229b4/attachment-0001.vcf>