<html><body><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div>I think g12 group should give us some explanations. </div><div>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? </div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div data-marker="__SIG_PRE__">-Eugene</div><div><br></div><hr id="zwchr" data-marker="__DIVIDER__"><div data-marker="__HEADERS__"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;" data-mce-style="border-left: 2px solid #1010FF; margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px; color: #000; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><b>From: </b>"Johann Goetz" <theodore.goetz@gmail.com><br><b>To: </b>"Keith Griffioen" <griff@physics.wm.edu>, "Eugene Pasyuk" <pasyuk@jlab.org><br><b>Cc: </b>"Marco Battaglieri" <battaglieri@ge.infn.it>, "Dave Ireland" <david.ireland@glasgow.ac.uk>, "Gerald Gilfoyle" <gilfoyle@jlab.org>, "Raffaella De Vita" <raffaella.devita@ge.infn.it>, "Michael Dugger" <dugger@jlab.org>, "Yordanka Ilieva" <jordanka@jlab.org>, "Lei Guo" <lguo@jlab.org>, "Silvia Niccolai" <niccolai@ipno.in2p3.fr><br><b>Sent: </b>Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:54:21 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: g12 review<br></blockquote></div><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;" data-mce-style="border-left: 2px solid #1010FF; margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px; color: #000; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div dir="ltr">maybe part of the lack of communications stems from the fact that people do not think it necessary to use the g12 mailing list!<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:32 PM Keith Griffioen <<a href="mailto:griff@physics.wm.edu" target="_blank" data-mce-href="mailto:griff@physics.wm.edu">griff@physics.wm.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex" data-mce-style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi Eugene,<br> <br> 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.<br> <br> 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.<br> <br> 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.<br> <br> 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.<br> <br> 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.<br> <br> Thanks,<br> Keith<br> <br> <br> <br> > On Jun 30, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Eugene Pasyuk <<a href="mailto:pasyuk@jlab.org" target="_blank" data-mce-href="mailto:pasyuk@jlab.org">pasyuk@jlab.org</a>> wrote:<br> ><br> > Dear all,<br> ><br> > 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. <a href="https://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/shifts/index.php?display=admin&task=paper_review&rid=6996371&operation=view" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" data-mce-href="https://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/shifts/index.php?display=admin&task=paper_review&rid=6996371&operation=view">https://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/shifts/index.php?display=admin&task=paper_review&rid=6996371&operation=view</a><br> > This review has started in April of 2015 while the group review has started in October 2014.<br> > Interestingly enough this analysis note has twice as many pages as the group one.<br> ><br> > To me it looks like a lack of coordination and communication between the physics working groups and even within g12 group.<br> > The whole point of the group review was to avoid duplication of efforts in reviewing the same things over and over.<br> ><br> > Can anyone comment why did this happen and what are we going to do about it.<br> ><br> > Thanks,<br> ><br> > -Eugene<br> <br></blockquote></div></div><br></blockquote></div></div></body></html>