9:56 p.m.
Dear Tom and WG1 conveners,
thank you very much for contacting us about the abstracts commonly
submitted to WG1 and WG4. We have not yet taken final decisions for any of
them, so, before accepting anything submitted to us and to you, we would
be grateful if you can wait us (in other words, there might be something
that you want to have for a talk in your session, but we might also want).
From preliminary screening, we might be interested to two of the abstracts
you seem also highly interested.
Is it possible for you to wait some days ?
We will have a discussion among us this tuesday.
On wednesday or thursday it should be possible for us to confirm you if
there is any of the abstracts you want to accept for a talk in your
session or merge, that we also want for talks in our session.
As for abstract 424 submitted for a poster to your session, fine with us
if you accept it like that in your session.
As for the WG1/WG4 abstracts you do not want to accept in your session:
please, do not even reject them completely. We will think if accepting
them in our session or if definitely reject them (if we also find them
uninteresting/unsuitable).
Thank you for your patience and best regards,
Maria V.
for WG4
On Sun, 6 Mar 2022, Cridge, Tom wrote:
> Dear WG4 conveners,
>
> We wanted to contact you regarding shared abstracts between our two WGs as it is
useful to know how to
> divide the talks across groups, particularly given the tight constraints we all have.
We believe there are
> 17 abstracts shared between our WGs (five of which are also shared with WG2, WG3 or
WG5).
>
> In terms of these shared abstracts we wanted to accept the following:
> 312, 167 (hoping to merge with another abstract we have), 214 (hoping to merge with
another abstract we
> have), 150, 219, 138, 94, 264 and 119
> - we are open to you considering the talks we have here which we are hoping to merge
with others so please
> let us know if you were intending to take those talks.
>
> We also intend to accept 424 which is submitted as a poster.
>
> Therefore we do not intend to accept:
> 199 (also shared with WG5), 110 (we could have this one as a backup if needed), 174
(also shared with
> WG2), 226, 261, 269 or 270 (also shared with WG2)
>
> Please let us know if you are taking any of these abstracts for talks and feel free
to contact us with
> your thoughts on this or if you have any queries.
>
> Many thanks,
> Tom for WG1 conveners (Tom, Klaus, Barak)
>
>
>