<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear All,<br>
a lot has already been said and I believe there is a consensus on
the fact that there has been an unpleasant lack of communication but
there is some information I would like to add.<br>
As Pawel said, various months ago he informed me and other people on
this email list that the group involved in the TCS analysis was
considering asking to have an analysis review within the DPWG,
independently of the g12 rungroup review, since they thought their
analysis note could be released sooner than the g12 group. At that
time, what he suggested was to at least ensure a connection between
the two reviews by having an overlap between the review committee
members. I guessed that did not happened and, after that,
communications got somehow interrupted. In fact I can say I had not
idea that the independent TCS review had been pursued and had
actually started. <br>
It has already been said several time that this should have happened
and I can only add that I hope it will at least be a lesson for the
future.<br>
Regards,<br>
Raffaella<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Pawel Nadel-Turonski wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:A237C99C-80B4-4D45-80F1-C5A0C2D8D7A8@jlab.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Hi Eugene,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I am sorry that the details of the TCS review did
not reach you - but we did have discussions with Raffaella and
Lei before Keith formed the DPWG committee. There is also a g12
person among the reviewers of the TCS analysis, who is also
actively working on the g12 analysis note. Also, this is not an
uncommon procedure in CLAS. For instance, some g13 analyses are
being presented and reviewed in the hadron spectroscopy group
and other in the nuclear group depending on the physics that is
being pursued. In the case of TCS, we felt that it was important
to have reviewers who were familiar with TCS and DVCS as well as
the details of g12 and photoproduction experiments. I think that
Keith set up a perfect committee to address the challenges that
this analysis presents. The TCS analysis well known to the g12
run group - and while the treatment of some some subsystems
(TOF, EC, CC) are specific to the TCS analysis, it uses the same
basic tools (cooking, skims, etc). The folks working on TCS are
collaborating with other in the g12 run group both on issues
specific to TCS as well as those which are not. Thus, while one
never can have too good communication, I have a feeling that
things are perhaps not as bad as you fear.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Cheers,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">
</span>Pawel</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jun 30, 2015, at 2:10 PM, Eugene Pasyuk
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pasyuk@jlab.org" class="">pasyuk@jlab.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt;" class="">
<div class="">I think g12 group should give us some
explanations. </div>
<div class="">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 class="">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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div data-marker="__SIG_PRE__" class="">-Eugene</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<hr id="zwchr" data-marker="__DIVIDER__" class="">
<div data-marker="__HEADERS__" class="">
<blockquote style="border-left-width: 2px;
border-left-style: solid; border-left-color:
rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left:
5px; 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;"
class=""><b class="">From: </b>"Johann Goetz"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:theodore.goetz@gmail.com" class="">theodore.goetz@gmail.com</a>><br
class="">
<b class="">To: </b>"Keith Griffioen" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:griff@physics.wm.edu" class="">griff@physics.wm.edu</a>>,
"Eugene Pasyuk" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pasyuk@jlab.org" class="">pasyuk@jlab.org</a>><br
class="">
<b class="">Cc: </b>"Marco Battaglieri" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:battaglieri@ge.infn.it" class="">battaglieri@ge.infn.it</a>>,
"Dave Ireland" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:david.ireland@glasgow.ac.uk"
class="">david.ireland@glasgow.ac.uk</a>>,
"Gerald Gilfoyle" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gilfoyle@jlab.org" class="">gilfoyle@jlab.org</a>>,
"Raffaella De Vita" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:raffaella.devita@ge.infn.it"
class="">raffaella.devita@ge.infn.it</a>>,
"Michael Dugger" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dugger@jlab.org" class="">dugger@jlab.org</a>>,
"Yordanka Ilieva" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordanka@jlab.org" class="">jordanka@jlab.org</a>>,
"Lei Guo" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lguo@jlab.org" class="">lguo@jlab.org</a>>,
"Silvia Niccolai" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:niccolai@ipno.in2p3.fr" class="">niccolai@ipno.in2p3.fr</a>><br
class="">
<b class="">Sent: </b>Tuesday, June 30, 2015
1:54:21 PM<br class="">
<b class="">Subject: </b>Re: g12 review<br
class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
<div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__" class="">
<blockquote style="border-left-width: 2px;
border-left-style: solid; border-left-color:
rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left:
5px; 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;"
class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">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 class="">
<br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="">On Tue, Jun 30, 2015
at 1:32 PM Keith Griffioen <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:griff@physics.wm.edu"
target="_blank"
data-mce-href="mailto:griff@physics.wm.edu"
class="">griff@physics.wm.edu</a>>
wrote:<br class="">
</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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Thanks,<br class="">
Keith<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
> On Jun 30, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Eugene
Pasyuk <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pasyuk@jlab.org"
target="_blank"
data-mce-href="mailto:pasyuk@jlab.org"
class="">pasyuk@jlab.org</a>> wrote:<br
class="">
><br class="">
> Dear all,<br class="">
><br class="">
> 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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"
class="">https://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/shifts/index.php?display=admin&task=paper_review&rid=6996371&operation=view</a><br
class="">
> This review has started in April of
2015 while the group review has started in
October 2014.<br class="">
> Interestingly enough this analysis note
has twice as many pages as the group one.<br
class="">
><br class="">
> To me it looks like a lack of
coordination and communication between the
physics working groups and even within g12
group.<br class="">
> The whole point of the group review was
to avoid duplication of efforts in reviewing
the same things over and over.<br class="">
><br class="">
> Can anyone comment why did this happen
and what are we going to do about it.<br
class="">
><br class="">
> Thanks,<br class="">
><br class="">
> -Eugene<br class="">
<br class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br
class="">
G12 mailing list<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:G12@jlab.org"
class="">G12@jlab.org</a><br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g12">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g12</a><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
G12 mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:G12@jlab.org">G12@jlab.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g12">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g12</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>