sPHENIX tracking discussion

["Frawley, Anthony" <afrawley AT fsu.edu>]

Hi Al,

I think reorganizing would be a bad idea right now. The silicon tracker description and simulations need a lot of work, and I don't think we have the option of not doing it. I am running some simulations, and I am just now starting to edit the silicon parts of the tracker section. So I agree with Tom - let's focus on completing it, and reorganize it later.

Tony

---

From: sphenix-tracking-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov [sphenix-tracking-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] on behalf of Yasuyuki Akiba [akiba AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 8:02 PM
To: hemmick AT skipper.physics.sunysb.edu; sphenix-tracking-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: Re: [Sphenix-tracking-l] Responding to Comments from PMG.

Dear Tom and all,

 

Ø  There is one outstanding comment about organization.  We have broken each section (description, justification, schedule, simulations, R&D, ...) into pieces; one for each technology.  There is a comment that this is tough on the reader since they continually move back & forth between technology options. I agree with the comment

 

I also agree with the comment. The current organization is crazy. We should change it immediately. I think someone should take the edit token now and re-arrange the section so that each technology has one continuous subsection. Any volunteer?

 

Sincerely yours,

              Y. Akiba

 

From: sphenix-tracking-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov [mailto:sphenix-tracking-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] On Behalf Of Thomas K Hemmick
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 5:19 PM
To: sphenix-tracking-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: [Sphenix-tracking-l] Responding to Comments from PMG.

 

Hi all

 

I have responded to most of the comments from PMG regarding the TPC sections of the tracking chapter.  Explicitly these include comments about available manpower and experience with MAPS detectors.  Both of these comments enhance the document since the answers are helpful to our case.

 

There is one outstanding comment about organization.  We have broken each section (description, justification, schedule, simulations, R&D, ...) into pieces; one for each technology.  There is a comment that this is tough on the reader since they continually move back & forth between technology options.  I agree with the comment, but it would be pretty invasive to try a major rearrangement while people are live editing.  Therefore, I'm tempted to skip compliance with that request until after the C&S review.

 

Comments?

Tom