[G12] g12 review

[Eugene Pasyuk]

I think g12 group should give us some explanations. 
Why we did not know about the second review. We had dedicated discussion at the last collaboration meeting and no one said anything. Or may be g12 group did not know about it either? 
How much the time-like Compton analysis relies on common g12 procedures documented in the g12 umbrella note. Is there an overlap between two notes? 

-Eugene 

> From: "Johann Goetz" <theodore.goetz at gmail.com>
> To: "Keith Griffioen" <griff at physics.wm.edu>, "Eugene Pasyuk" <pasyuk at jlab.org>
> Cc: "Marco Battaglieri" <battaglieri at ge.infn.it>, "Dave Ireland"
> <david.ireland at glasgow.ac.uk>, "Gerald Gilfoyle" <gilfoyle at jlab.org>,
> "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>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:54:21 PM
> Subject: Re: g12 review

> maybe part of the lack of communications stems from the fact that people do not
> think it necessary to use the g12 mailing list!

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:32 PM Keith Griffioen < griff at physics.wm.edu > wrote:

>> Hi Eugene,

>> Speaking as DPWG Chair, let me first apologize for lack of coordination on this
>> matter with the Spectroscopy group. I think what you are doing with an umbrella
>> analysis note is excellent. This streamlining is a model for the future.

>> Within the CLAS collaboration there has never been a one-to-one correspondence
>> between a run group and a working group. Recently there has been enough overlap
>> between nuclear and deep-processes that we have started to run our sessions
>> sequentially so people can attend both. With the advent of deeply-virtual meson
>> production, the overlap between deep processes and spectroscopy is now
>> increasing. All of this is a good thing, but it will require better
>> communication between the working groups.

>> Ibrahim Albayrak has given talks in the Deep Processes working group on
>> time-like Compton scattering (a “deep” process) from g12 data in October 2012,
>> February 2013, and June 2013. Ibrahim and I had been in contact during the time
>> of his writing an analysis note, and I assigned a committee once this note was
>> in good form.

>> I see no reason why the DPWG analysis reviewers should not be informed by the
>> umbrella review, and, therefore, they can focus on the specifics of the
>> time-like Compton analysis. This would be a model for the future, in which the
>> nuts-and-bolts of analysis (calibrations, cooking, momentum corrections, etc.)
>> are discussed in an umbrella note, and specifics are contained in shorter, more
>> specific individual analysis notes.

>> So, let’s consider this as an experiment, albeit imperfect under the
>> circumstances. In the future, with better communication, we can learn to avoid
>> the duplication of effort seen in this case.

>> Thanks,
>> Keith

>> > On Jun 30, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Eugene Pasyuk < pasyuk at jlab.org > 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/20150630/42e2c79c/attachment-0001.html>