Hi Gerry,

     I read through the entire document over the weekend,
and will send comments on the posted sections here.  In
another email, I will respond on some issues for Secs. 2 and
4.  I will not repeat the hand-written corrections I left
with you last week before leaving BNL.

Executive summary:

page 1, ~half way down  -  "The RHIC 100-250 GeV colliding
beams ..."  There are two minor comments.  First, I presume
the beam energies can go down to 24 GeV (even lower??) if
desired.  Second, this may be a bit ambiguous whether beam
energies or sqrt(s) is written (for the non-experts).

page 1, bottom  -  In your list of "independent methods",
please include jet+jet production, or some general
expression, such as "and others".

page 2, first paragraph  -  include somewhere that sqrt(s) =
500 GeV measurements are important for Delta g(x) to push to
lower x.  Also, shouldn't the 200 GeV running be from
2005-2009, not 2008?

page 2, fig 1 caption  -  latex problem at very end of
caption.

page 3, line 10  -  are the correct/current values 330 and
950 pb^-1?

page 4, next to last paragraph  -  Shouldn't the sqrt(s) =
200 GeV running be from 2005 - 2009 (not just 2008) in the
current description?

page 4, last paragraph  -  Why would the heavy ion program
be stretched a factor of greater than 2 in the 5 week per
year SPIN running plan?  Shouldn't the comment on the heavy
ion running be removed?  Am I missing something from Tom
Kirk's charge?

Accelerator section:

page 2, line 3  -  shouldn't FY2008 be changed to FY2009 to
be consistent with the figure?

page 2, line 6  -  "averages" -> "average"

page 3, half way down  -  "Operation with more than two
collision (POINTS or REGIONS) will ..."

Spin Plan:

page 1, near bottom  -  I thought the pp interaction diamond
was considerably longer than a sigma ~ 20-25 cm.  This is
related to the statement that the Phenix vertex acceptance
is 60% and the cut is +/- 20 cm.  I think the statement that
STAR accepts all vertices is also incorrect.

page 1, last paragraph  -  again, 2008 -> 2009, 300 -> 330
pb^-1, etc.  The text needs to be updated.

     Sorry I didn't catch some of these earlier.  Please try
to make changes before sending out the full document
tomorrow morning.

                         Best wishes,

                            Hal



Gerry Bunce wrote:
> 
> Hello Wlodek, Fleming, Tim, and Bill--We are trying
> very hard to get the spinplan to you so that the
> experimenters can weigh in, beyond those writing it.
> As you know, we are committed to completing the
> document in time for the budget briefing Feb. 15 at
> DOE for the BNL management.
> 
> I expect that the document will be in very good shape
> by then, but the difficulty is in getting sufficient
> time for experiment feedback.
> 
> The plan is still in a too early draft stage for the
> science and experiment sections, so we would like to
> distribute the other sections now and distribute the
> science and experiment sections Tuesday morning.
> 
> Yuji Goto will place the "completed" sections on the
> web in the spin discussion page section, and give you
> the location on Saturday.  This will have
> --report from the DOE review (which requested the
>         spin plan)
> --charge from Tom Kirk (we should emphasize that in
>         considering 10 and 5 spin weeks per year we are
>         responding to the charge, and also not changing
>         the beam use proposal approach to setting the
>         actual schedule)
> --executive summary (this is a draft, but has been in
>         place for 4 weeks--the main issue for me here
>         is how to present the various upgrades, so this
>         is important for everyone) There are 3 figures
>         on gluon, W, and schedule that are not in place
>         (the schedule figure is already in the
>         accelerator section)
> --accelerator section (this is complete)
> --spin schedule (draft but only small things to
>         complete)
> --summary (complete)