[DIS2022_wg1] Re: [DIS2022_wg1]

Dear Yoshitaka and WG5 conveners, Great thanks for sharing 373, we will consider it with our others. Thanks for dealing with the other shared abstracts and the ones we suggested for your WG, much appreciated. As for 132, CMS apparently accidentally ticked plenary for their submissions I believe but please ignore that, it is a normal parallel talk. Best, Tom ------------------------------ *From:* yoshitaka hatta <yoshitaka.hatta(a)gmail.com&gt; *Sent:* 04 March 2022 03:48 *To:* Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk&gt; *Cc:* dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es>; dis2022_wg5(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg5(a)igfae.usc.es&gt; *Subject:* Re: [DIS2022_wg1] Dear Tom and WG1 conveners, Thanks for taking in the three abstracts. We will take care of 237 and others. Sorry I should have sent you the abstract of 373. I noticed my fellow convener just sent you. Concerning the three abstracts you suggested, indeed these look more relevant to our WG. We can accept 132 and 377 (not sure why 132 is meant for "plenary"). As for the theory abstract 362, we probably do not accept it as a talk, but we can consider it for a poster presentation. Best Yoshitaka 2022年3月3日(木) 16:31 Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk&gt;: Dear Yoshitaka and WG5 conveners, Thank you for your email, we were ourselves going to contact you regarding shared abstracts as it is useful to know how to divide the talks across groups, particularly given the tight constraints we all have. In terms of these shared abstracts you mention and others: - We indeed intend to take abstract 141 as well as 153 (we will ask the authors to merge it with another talk we have - 167 which is shared with yourselves and WG4) and 325 (again we will ask the authors to merge it with another talk we have). - We do not intend to take 237, we felt it more appropriate for your sessions, nor did we plan to take 199 (leaving it to yourselves or WG4), 239, 72 (yourselves or WG3 or WG6), 378, 391 or 394 all of which we felt did not fit in our sessions and would match better your activities. - Please share abstract 373 and we will take a look, we also had some abstracts submitted solely to WG1 we thought might work better in your WG5, these were 132, 377, 362. We attach these to this email for you to consider. We too are in a difficult situation, indeed as Nestor noted WG1 has the most talks submitted, we therefore have more than 2x as many abstracts submitted as talks we can take. Nonetheless we have taken three of the shared abstracts as mentioned (141, 153 and 325), we hope you will be able to consider taking some of the remaining shared abstracts and those we feel are more appropriate for yourselves (attached). Many thanks, Tom for WG1 conveners (Tom, Klaus, Barak) ------------------------------ *From:* yoshitaka hatta <yoshitaka.hatta(a)gmail.com&gt; *Sent:* 03 March 2022 14:14 *To:* dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es>; dis2022_wg5(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg5(a)igfae.usc.es&gt; *Subject:* [DIS2022_wg1] (no subject) ⚠ Caution: External sender Dear WG1 conveners. There are 10 abstracts jointly submitted to WG1 and WG5 at DIS2022. Among them we think #141 and #237 are worth considering for your WG. Also, #373 has been submitted solely to WG5, but we do not see much connection to "spin and 3D". It might be more relevant to WG1? We are in a difficult situation where we have to reject almost 40% of the abstracts, so we would appreciate if you could accept at least one of them (especially #141). Best regards, Yoshitaka, for WG5 conveners