Hi Tom,
Thanks for the reply. We've discussed this so please see our response below.
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 1:20 AM, Tom Cridge <t.cridge@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear Adam, Heidi, and Heather,
Thank you for your email, we have also done an initial pass on the abstracts we have received and were going to get in touch with you as well. As for your specific questions:
- Abstract 24, we had intended to accept this in a session on Tools and Machine learning but are happy to discuss your inclusion instead.
→ We don't feel strongly, so happy if you accept it.
- Abstracts 93 and 351, we already have many talks from the PDF groups and so felt that these would be good to include in your WG3.
→ We're happy to accept these.
- Abstract 268 we agree with you that it is better for your WG3.
→ We've accepted it
- Abstract 406 we had labelled as backup so are happy for you to take it instead.
→ We've accepted it
- Abstract 264 we were happy to take and will contact WG3 and 4 about it.
→ We're happy that you accept this.
- Abstracts 62 and 72 are also shared between us and another working group, we believe are better for other working groups (6 and 5 respectively).
→ Yes, we are not planning on accepting these for our session.
Cheers
Adam, Heidi and Heather
Many thanks,Tom, Klaus and Barak
From: Heather Gray <heather.gray@ >berkeley. edu
Sent: 25 February 2022 17:04
To: dis2022_wg1@igfae. <dis2022_wg1@usc. es igfae. >usc. es
Cc: Heidi Rzehak <heidi.rzehak@ >; Adam Martin <amarti41@itp. uni-tuebingen. de nd. >edu
Subject: [DIS2022_wg1] Abstracts submitted to WG3 and WG1 for DIS 2022
Caution: External sender
Dear Tom, Klaus, and Barak,
We've done an initial pass on the abstracts submitted to WG3 and wanted to get in touch with you about some abstracts that have been submitted to both WG1 and WG3.
- Abstract 24. We would like to see this accepted and we think this could fit in either, so wanted to check if you have a preference.
- Abstracts 93 and 351. We think that these would fit better in WG1 than WG3.
- Abstracts 268 and 406. We would like to accept these and think they fit better in WG3.
- Abstract 264. This was submitted to WG1, 3 and 4, but we think it would fit best in WG4 (and will get in contact with them).
Let us know your thoughts. We're happy to discuss any of these.
Best wishes,
Adam, Heidi, and Heather
Assistant Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720
heather.gray@ berkeley. edu
Faculty Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 50B5239, Berkeley, CA 94720
From: Heather Gray <heather.gray@ >berkeley. edu
Sent: 25 February 2022 17:04
To: dis2022_wg1@igfae. <dis2022_wg1@usc. es igfae. >usc. es
Cc: Heidi Rzehak <heidi.rzehak@ >; Adam Martin <amarti41@itp. uni-tuebingen. de nd. >edu
Subject: [DIS2022_wg1] Abstracts submitted to WG3 and WG1 for DIS 2022
Dear Tom, Klaus, and Barak,
We've done an initial pass on the abstracts submitted to WG3 and wanted to get in touch with you about some abstracts that have been submitted to both WG1 and WG3.
- Abstract 24. We would like to see this accepted and we think this could fit in either, so wanted to check if you have a preference.
- Abstracts 93 and 351. We think that these would fit better in WG1 than WG3.
- Abstracts 268 and 406. We would like to accept these and think they fit better in WG3.
- Abstract 264. This was submitted to WG1, 3 and 4, but we think it would fit best in WG4 (and will get in contact with them).
Let us know your thoughts. We're happy to discuss any of these.
Best wishes,
Adam, Heidi, and Heather
Assistant Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720
heather.gray@ berkeley. edu
Faculty Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 50B5239, Berkeley, CA 94720