Hi Gerry,

   I'm working on adding figures to the STAR section, but
will not be able to complete that before this evening -- if you like
I can send what I have so far, which has all the figures inserted
for the first subsection on upgrades already added for spin. 
Among the figures are some preliminary physics results suggesting
performance of the detector, but it is frankly premature for us
to quote reconstruction efficiencies -- algorithm development
is still under way for both jets and pi0's.

   While I tend to agree with Tom Ludlam that the timeline for
W upgrades is probably not realistic, I would make the same
statement about the entire upgrade plan for both STAR and
PHENIX.  I think this issue has to be settled by having each
collaboration come up with a realistic overall upgrade plan --
this cannot be decided within the RSC.  I think it would be a
mistake for the spin report to "lead" the way on delaying
upgrades.  As I have mentioned before, STAR intends to
initiate a hard discussion of a real plan at the upcoming
Collaboration meeting, but the evolution of that plan will
not occur on a timescale appropriate to the spin report.

   Frankly, I would prefer to spend time working on the
report than to have another phone conference this evening.

Steve

Gerry Bunce wrote:

>Hello all--Hopefully we have now had the
>time to go thru the report.  I think a major issue to
>address before distributing the report to the
>experiments is to correct any disparity between STAR
>and PHENIX.  (We also need to clean up other sections
>and that will also happen today, but some theory issues
>can be addressed later this week I think.)
>
>On reading the Phenix and Star sections, they take
>fairly different approaches, both being fine I think,
>but the question is whether they can coexist.
>Phenix is too long and has some physics plots that
>should be removed.  However, the main difference is in
>giving performance details.  I wonder whether we can
>get some performance details on the emcal and jets
>for STAR from the d-A work with one or more figures?
>
>I think each should have a figure on the W upgrade.
>Both should have schedule and estimated cost (no detail)
>as has been placed in the executive summary (Phenix is
>missing this).
>
>What is the best way to get this done hopefully today?
>
>I suggest that we work in this direction today and
>distribute drafts as soon as possible (figures were
>missing for your draft for STAR).
>
>If it is useful, we can schedule a telephone meeting
>for 1730 say or later.
>
>There are I think smaller issues in the science section.
>The W section needs to be completed to distribute (it
>is quite good I think).  The transverse spin section
>is very well written but is too long I think.  However,
>we can address this later this week.  There are a bunch
>of smaller additions and corrections that need to go
>in, and that will be done today hopefully.  (I have a
>very useful list from Hal.)
>
>So, please send to me and the group any comments,
>suggestions, corrections.  New (or completed) drafts as
>soon as possible for Star, Phenix, W.
>
>Tom Ludlam read thru the plan and likes very much the
>theory introduction (and suggests that this should be
>highlighted in the summary!).  He questions the
>W upgrade schedule.  I will try to meet with Tom 
>today to address his questions and concerns, and we 
>will get back to everyone on that.  Obviously the
>proposed schedule is a major issue.  (The science
>perspective WAS highlighted in the original summary.)
>
>				Gerry
>  
>  
>