Dear Roman, dear all
I accept to be the consultant. Now the question is who decides on the qualification of "strong arguments » if any? and how the consultant could be informed about this?
I suppose the strong arguments will come from the collaboration once the draft is circulated right? and if some of the suggestions of the collaboration are not taken into account what happens?
Regards
Imad
> Le 2 avr. 2019 à 21:39, Roman Pöschl <[log in to unmask]> a écrit :
>
> Dear Imad,
>
> we are at the beginning of the drafting phase of the Paper 030 on the reconstruction of hadrons in the combined setup (SiW ECAL + AHCAL).
>
> According to our updated procedures
>
> https://agenda.linearcollider.org/event/8023/contributions/42113/attachments/33463/51265/talk300818-v4.pdf
> (Page 4)
>
> there should always be a SpB member part of the Editorial Board. The SpB Chair acts as a "consultant" who intervenes in case of conflicts or any sort of question that the EB is not able to solve with the authors. In the case of Paper030 R.P. is member of the EB. In this case it is foreseen that the role of the consultant is delegated to the Spokesperson or the IB Chair. Since Frank is among the authors I would therefore like to ask you Imad to accept the role of the consultant. In principle the consultant should not intervene during the drafting phase but should be informed at the beginning of the drafting phase and before draft circulation in the collaboration (or at any moment that the EB or the authors think is appropriate). Only in case of strong arguments this consultant should e.g. stop the circulation.
>
> For information:
>
> - Authors: Yasmine Israeli, Frank Simon
>
> - EB: Eva Sicking, Andy White, R.P.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roman
>
>
>
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the CALICE-SPEAKERS-BUREAU list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CALICE-SPEAKERS-BUREAU&A=1
|