[Gpdtc] Wednesday....

[David Richards]

Hi Christian,

Thank you for the very helpful comments and additions...

On Jan 11, 2022, at 2:25 PM, Christian Weiss <weiss at jlab.org<mailto:weiss at jlab.org>> wrote:


David, All,


Thank you for putting this together. I think it is appropriate for the purpose. A few comments:


1) P2: When you present this, mention in words that
— no more than 3-5 TCs will be approved across all of NP;
— a strong proposal in hadron spectroscopy will be put forward.
This will make it clear that there can/should at most be one other JLab-related proposal in hadron structure,
and that we have to come together on this.

I think this is a good idea - though wouldn’t want to be too specific about the spectroscopy effort, since I don’t know much.


2) P3: Add “creation of new bridge positions” to the list of criteria. It is really critical

I will replace the last bullet by your wording.


3) P3: The goal is a “limited project rather than long-term program.” The role of the CNF in the TC will have to be
defined with that in mind, even if it means reducing that role (or making it less visible). This is a delicate matter.
It would be worth pointing it out explicitly.

I’ve reworded it - "A task that is achievable within a five-year project,  and which will advance a long-term effort such as that represented by CNF"


4) Generally, we should focus on what we all want to do within the new “larger” group going forward, rather than
spending much time on what we have discussed so far in our subgroup.


5) Since the number of participants will now be very considerable (>~20), we all need to think how to manage
this effectively. It will work only if a small team (3-5 people) takes responsibility and designs/prepares the actual
program and proposal.

I think it is not exactly clear at this stage what will result from this - I would think only a single proposal, but not sure this is set in stone….

David



Best regards,


Ch.


On Jan 10, 2022, at 5:06 PM, David Richards <dgr at jlab.org<mailto:dgr at jlab.org>> wrote:

Hi All,

Before I go too far down writing something for Wednesday, please find attached some first thoughts - without figures.


The first couple of slides are basically some observations about the call, and what are likely to be the criteria (NB I could have also included diversity in all its interpretations…).
The real issue is how much should we discuss about our discussions and aims in the context of this meeting (transparency 5), and should I say (verbally or on paper) who is currently in our discussions (page 6) - I’ve listed institutions + (incomplete) names.  I make the point on page 3 that the creation of long-term positions is an important task, but I’m not sure I would want to say in writing where those positions might be.

I’ve taken the Executive Summary document, and page 5 is basically the extraction of that.  But we had some discussion before the break as to what the focus should be - for example, purely to extract GPDs, or aim to learn something more about the internal dynamics of hadrons (ie as Christian was discussing).  Similarly, Global Fitting or are there some better words we can use?


Regards,
David


<TownHall.pdf>_______________________________________________
Gpdtc mailing list
Gpdtc at jlab.org<mailto:Gpdtc at jlab.org>
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/gpdtc


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/gpdtc/attachments/20220111/7412bc67/attachment.html>