Hi Frank and all,
I have no objection to clarify the situation with the conveners so let’s wait their answer.
Regards
Imad
Le 14 mars 2016 à 18:41, Frank Simon <[log in to unmask]> a écrit :

> Dear Marina, Imad, all,
> 
> actually my interpretation is the following: We were asked to merge the two technology abstracts (982 & 983) and have accepted, so those two in principle now are the same thing. In addition we had the test beam abstract. Since the conveners did not give us the two talks we hoped for, they chose to give us two posters plus one talk. For me this means the following:
> 
> We have one talk to present our technology activities (all, including SiW ECAL), and one poster to show the details that we can not include in the talk. In addition we get only a poster to present our test beam results. 
> 
> If you are unsure about this interpretation then we should clarify with the conveners. I do not think we should now tell Vladik and Jean-Claude that they have a talk on the SiW ECAL alone, since this very clearly was not the intention of the conveners as expressed in their first email to us. That would only create uneccessary confusion. 
> 
> So, Marina, I suggest that you clarify this with the conveners to get a clear statement on that matter (not asking about reshuffling, just clarifying the intentions), and then we should discuss within CALICE what to present where.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> 
>> On 14 Mar 2016, at 18:33 , laktineh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Marina
>> Those people are  really not very serious….but maybe the two abstracts are too much broad and thus confusing so that the conveners decided to choose the one whose content is easily identified. 
>> 
>> I think we should first of all ask the ECAL people (Vladik, Jean-Claude) if they have enough material for an oral presentation.If they have then let’s give them the chance to defend their project. If they have not (which will be very surprising) then we can contact the conveners to ask them to revise their decision and pick up either the 979 or the 982.  
>> 
>> I don’t think that we should ask the conveners to revise their decision before to discuss with the ECAL people.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Imad
>> 
>> 
>> Le 14 mars 2016 à 18:12, chadeeva <[log in to unmask]> a écrit :
>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> Our abstracts for ICHEP were accepted as 1 oral and 2 poster presentations:
>>> (1) abstract #979 "Technology Development for Highly Granular Calorimeters" has been accepted for a poster presentation;
>>> (2) abstract #982 "Test Beam Performance and Detailed Studies of the Structure of Hadronic Showers with Highly Granular Calorimeters" has been accepted for a poster presentation;
>>> (3) abstract #983 "The ILD/CALICE Silicon-Tungsten Electromagnetic Calorimeter: status and potential" has been accepted for an oral presentation in the Detector: R&D and Performance session.
>>> 
>>> To say the truth I am a bit surprised with the choice.
>>> If you remember we were asked by the conveners to merge two technology abstracts.
>>> Should we remind them that we have agreed  to merge them or we will accept things as is? What do you think?
>>> 
>>> Please send your opinion asap because we must make a decision about the speakers and inform the organizers. 
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Marina
> 
> <=========================================================> 
> Frank Simon 
> 
> Max-Planck-Institut fuer Physik 
> 
> Phone: 	+49-89-32354-535 
> Mobile: 	+49-160-90446142    
> <=========================================================>