[Gpdtc] [External] Draft document....

Thu Jan 20 12:50:40 EST 2022

Alberto, All,

Very good points.

Just a comment on the possibility of merging after the LOI stage: I do not think this would be realistic or desirable.

A merger at that stage would most likely be initiated/directed “administratively”, by the program manager, Lab management, etc.
This would not help with addressing any of the sensitive issues that we discussed today, rather the opposite.
In such a situation the party that looks stronger “on paper” will have much more leverage.

Also, we need to focus our energies on the “final” proposal that will enter in the actual competition.
Any doubling of effort, posturing, etc. at this stage will strongly diminish the chances of success.

Our best chance to achieve a merger that is acceptable to us and practical going forward is now.

Ch.

On Jan 20, 2022, at 12:37 PM, Alberto Accardi <accardi at jlab.org<mailto:accardi at jlab.org>> wrote:

Dear all,

a few thoughts.

the document should not feel like we are dictating conditions sine qua non, yet be explicit on what we think a good structure should be (not top-down, dictator-style, for example, which seemed the consensus during this morning's meeting.)

The Call for Proposals explicitly mentions that the TopCol should be a "hub for networking". This is very much contrary to the top-down style that quite clearly Xiangdong is effectively forcing. He should be made to understand that. If the merged proposal reads like a CNF add-on it will be a loser, I think. Better putting in 2 different proposals.  (And, personally and scientifically, I would not be much interested in collaborating in a top-down structure. In a "networking, collaborative atmosphere? Definitely, which is why I like the present group.)

Maybe I am naive here, but the proposal submission is in 2 steps. Is it imperative to form 1 merged collaboration already at the LOI stage? If the differences between the 2 groups are not reconcilable by Feb 28, why not submitting 2 separate LOIs? We could propose the structure and aims we think are good and answer the call as we see it best. Then the program manager can come back to us all, with some directions - quite likely suggesting merging collaborations, but also highlighting strengths and weaknesses on either part. That might then become the basis for a merger, not personal or political considerations as it is happening now.

Best,

    Alberto

   Alberto
--
Dr. Alberto Accardi
Hampton U. and Jefferson Lab, USA
+1-757-304-6278‬ (home office)

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 11:46 AM Andreas Metz <andreas.metz at temple.edu<mailto:andreas.metz at temple.edu>> wrote:
Dear All,

Just a couple of comments:

  1.  Ideally the document won't be too long.
  2.  Some sort of a steering committee seems unavoidable for the effort.
  3.  I suggest that our group has as many members on a steering committee as the other group has.  I would not be in favor of having an election of such a committee during the time the LOI and the full proposal are being prepared.  (The collaboration may or may not agree on a rotating system or an election later.)

Best wishes,
Andreas

________________________________
From: Gpdtc <gpdtc-bounces at jlab.org<mailto:gpdtc-bounces at jlab.org>> on behalf of David Richards <dgr at jlab.org<mailto:dgr at jlab.org>>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 11:28 AM
To: gpdtc at jlab.org<mailto:gpdtc at jlab.org> <gpdtc at jlab.org<mailto:gpdtc at jlab.org>>
Subject: [External] [Gpdtc] Draft document....

Dear All,

We had a very long and productive discussion this morning.

If there is to be a merger with the other team, we would need to draft something to send them that encapsulates the structure we would like to see.  Christian, Ian, Martha and I will work on that over the next few hours in advance of our meeting at 530pm this afternoon.

To be most effective, it would be helpful if you could send any thoughts (eg as per the email of Kostas) by 1230pm today which we can then attempt to integrate into our draft.

Regards,
Christian, David, Ian and Martha
_______________________________________________
Gpdtc mailing list
Gpdtc at jlab.org<mailto:Gpdtc at jlab.org>
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.jlab.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpdtc&data=04%7C01%7Candreas.metz%40temple.edu%7C50f9f2750caa478b6cf108d9dc31f8d3%7C716e81efb52244738e3110bd02ccf6e5%7C0%7C0%7C637782929461145367%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=20uc53%2FQVg6Sa459lOz%2BpLv%2FrH2nRuSSWhfRsFHC5N0%3D&reserved=0<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmailman.jlab.org-252Fmailman-252Flistinfo-252Fgpdtc-26amp-3Bdata-3D04-257C01-257Candreas.metz-2540temple.edu-257C50f9f2750caa478b6cf108d9dc31f8d3-257C716e81efb52244738e3110bd02ccf6e5-257C0-257C0-257C637782929461145367-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C3000-26amp-3Bsdata-3D20uc53-252FQVg6Sa459lOz-252BpLv-252FrH2nRuSSWhfRsFHC5N0-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0&d=DwMFAg&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=O0ypPvcn8ZUcU42oKTSHzQ&m=MTtjN9CrzXcbCgVV2jiT2JCvdC69t_PjyUKWcv0zsXAB-_qio4gLBUNb1SOzvM5W&s=i76PU4SU7xgC8nredeg8Zl48dV7Odl96oLwj5UFA2Lc&e=>
_______________________________________________
Gpdtc mailing list
Gpdtc at jlab.org<mailto:Gpdtc at jlab.org>
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/gpdtc
_______________________________________________
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/20220120/08f043be/attachment-0001.html>