Hi Gerry,

   Attached is my interim version of the STAR section from last
night -- it has figures for the first subsection, not yet for the second.
All the figures for the second subsection exist, I just have to convert
them to eps format.  Obviously, since this is a version from last
night, it does not include any changes to address your earlier e-mail
or Abhay's latest version of the PHENIX section -- there are only
very minor text edits from the version that was posted Friday evening.
Nonetheless, people can see from the figures and captions in the
first subsection what I had in mind.

More later,
Steve

Gerry Bunce wrote:

>Thanks, Steve.  I agree completely.  No telephone
>meeting tonight, and I will try to talk with Tom L.
>this afternoon and get back to everyone.  Also, no
>problem with respect to quoting efficiencies.
>
>I would like to see a midterm STAR section sent to the
>list.  We will see where we are tomorrow morning.
>
>Gerry
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Steve Vigdor [mailto:vigdor@iucf.indiana.edu]
>Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 12:04 PM
>To: Gerry Bunce
>Cc: Yuji Goto; Wolfram Fischer; Wlodek Guryn; Werner Vogelsang; Vladimir
>Rykov; Stefan Kretzer; Naohito Saito; Michael Tannenbaum; Mei Bai;
>Matthias Perdekamp; Marco Stratmann; Les Bland; Larry Trueman; Jian-wei
>Qiu; Hal Spinka; Fleming Videbaek; Dave Kawall; Bernd Surrow; Alessandro
>Bravar; Akio OGAWA; Abhay Deshpande; William A. Zajc; Tom Ludlam; Tom
>Kirk; Tim Hallman; Thomas Roser; Sam Aronson; Derek Lowenstein; Satoshi
>Ozaki
>Subject: Re: spinplan and getting to the point of distribution
>
>
>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
>> 
>> 
>>
>>    
>>