[Gpdtc] [EXTERNAL] Re: Approach to Xiangdong, Feng, etc...

[Cloet, Ian C.]

Hi David,

I suspect Feng and/or Xiangdong will reach out to you soon to discuss. So I agree, sending the email sooner rather than later is a good idea. 

And I realize scheduling is difficult but I am open to a meeting most times over the holidays if needed. Thanks.

Cheers, Ian






On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 18:10:48 +0000
David Richards <dgr at jlab.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> Thank you for your responses, and there seems to be strong support that we should approach the others, probably in the first instance Feng and Xiangdong.
> 
> A couple of issues that have been raised.
> 
> - Who (or perhaps more to the point which institution) should be the PI.  I imagine some of that may be driven by which institution offers the best “financial advantages” in terms of overhead, but as Ian noted the ability to commit/attract bridge positions has to be a factor, and some diversity (in the broad sense) of PIs/spokespersons would be a good idea.
> 
> - How to approach them - in the first instance that pretty much means an email, probably to Feng and Xiangdong, suggesting we have a call together, and asking them to please invite their colleagues to join?  
> 
> Frankly, I think we should send the email in the next day or two, but suspect it is better to have that call when people return since there is no FOA as yet, and it would be a mistake to exclude people because they are away/wrong time zone/etc. - the logistics would just be too complicated.  However, I can see disadvantages in delaying….
> 
> Regards,
> David
> 
> 
> ****************************************************************************************************************************************************************
> 
> Dear Feng and Xiangdong,
> 
> Jianwei mentioned earlier this week that you had been talking about the possibility of pulling together a team, focused on GPDs, to respond to the expected call for Topical Collaborations in Nuclear Theory.  We’ve been having discussions about this focused both on the physics, and on the potential to create university bridge positions.  At the moment, we’ve had discussions with participants at ANL, JLab/Hampton/WM, Temple, UConn.
> 
> In the case of the physics, we’ve formulated our ideas into the broad areas of
> 
> a) QCD Theory, and experimental processes
> b) First-principles lattice QCD computations
> c) Global analysis/error quantization using lattice + experimental measures
> d) Implication for our understanding of internal structure of nucleons and nuclei
> 
> with c) being the primary output of the collaboration.
> 
> The other aspect we’ve been focused on is the issue of bridge positions, and in practice this is the issue where time is most of the essence given the need to engage with the administrations at the universities.
> 
> Collectively, we all feel that a combined effort would provide an exceptionally strong proposal - none of us have seen the FOA, but certainly Tim Hallman has indicated that one focused on hadron structure would be a high priority, given the 12GeV data now emerging and the future EIC.
> 
> Regards
> ????? LIST OUR NAMES, ANY THOUGHTS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gpdtc mailing list
> Gpdtc at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/gpdtc