Dear Tom and WG1 conveners,
after having carefully analyzed all abstracts, including those in common
between us and your group, we are back to you with our conclusions/proposal:
We plan to accept #199 for a talk (as far as we understood neither you
nor WG5 will do it, so we can do it).
We plan to accept #269 for a talk (that you are not planning to accept).
We would be happy to accept for talks even #119, #138, #264. These are
abstracts that you also would be happy to accept for talks, as far as
we understood. However, we kindly ask you if we can accept them at your
place, because we believe that they would fit well in our session (especially
#119 and #138, but even #264). This way you might have space for other talks.
We do not think that other WG1+WG4 fits so well in our preliminary program.
On the other hand, we wish to bring to your considerations another pair of
talks that were submitted to us, we think they are good, but we also think
are much more appropriate to you (because they do not include any
heavy-flavour stuff, and we focus particularly on the latter).
They are:
#172 Estimating missing higher orders in transverse momentum distributions
using resummations
#226 Inclusive jet measurement at 13 TeV, by CMS collaboration
We have shared them with you in the DIS 2022 website, so now they
should be visible also to you.
Maybe you can consider them for talks, instead of the ones that
we are "stealing" as talks from you ?
If at the end the number of accepted abstracts labelled as WG1 and WG4 is
large enough, we might also think to organize a common session.
But this will be clear only at the very end, after seeing the participants
who will really come.
Best regards,
maria v. and WG4 conveners.
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022, Maria Vittoria Garzelli wrote:
> Dear Tom,
>
> ok, we will be back to you in the week with our opinions as for all common
> abstracts. (....in the meanwhile you might start to send acceptance for
> the talks where WG4 is not involved and you have already clear ideas).
>
> As for 424: it was submitted as a poster, it is perfectly fine with us
> that you accept it in that format.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Maria V.
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022, Cridge, Tom wrote:
>
>> Dear Maria,
>>
>> We are happy to wait for your input, indeed the email sent was intended
>> to
>> let you know our thoughts on
>> shared abstracts so that you can respond with yours and then we can
>> appropriately divide the talks.
>>
>> As for abstract 424, this is labelled as a poster in contribution type,
>> hence our statement on accepting
>> it as a poster, was that your intention?
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>> From: Maria Vittoria Garzelli <garzelli(a)mail.desy.de>
>> Sent: 06 March 2022 21:56
>> To: Cridge, Tom <t.cridge(a)ucl.ac.uk>
>> Cc: dis2022_wg4(a)igfae.usc.es <dis2022_wg4(a)igfae.usc.es>;
>> dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es
>> <dis2022_wg1(a)igfae.usc.es>
>> Subject: Re: [DIS2022_wg4] Abstracts submitted to WG4 and WG1 for DIS
>> 2022
>>
>> ⚠ Caution: External sender
>>
>>
>> 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)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>