Hi Heiko et al.,
I have a conflicting meeting so will not attend tomorrow. I have a few
comments to offer:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Heiko Lacker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We should understand what still needs to be done and
> set-up a tentative timeline for the up-coming weeks/
> months.
You might want to think about review committees - are the members that
looked at the ICHEP result still available to review the PRD?
As noted in the Vub/SF workshop summary I just posted, the mx unfolding
analysis deserves some critical feedback from the AWG and RC, but also
from the experts within the vub-recoil group.
> We should clarify if we are aiming for a conference and if so which one.
> It might be more efficient to concentrate on the Journal publication and
> if this is ready to present the work at a conference that is closest in
> time. On the other hand something preliminary on the Moriond time scale
> would be very useful if we want to present something at the CKM WS 2005.
> And this would be a very good motivation to try to get something out for
> Moriond.
We expect to have the q2-Ee and endpoint analyses updated to use the
latest calculations of Neubert et al. for CKM2005. It would be very nice
to have comparable numbers for the recoil-based Vub analyses (in addition
to the updated BLL numbers).
> Several things certainly depend also on the discussion
> at the Vub/SF workshop. I'm curious to read the summary.
It's available now - please post questions as follow-ups to the HN.
Ciao,
Bob
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////
/ Robert V. Kowalewski \/ Dept. of Physics and Astronomy \
\ particle.phys.uvic.ca/~kowalews /\ University of Victoria /
/ Tel: (250)721-7705 \/ P.O. Box 3055 \
\ Email: [log in to unmask] /\ Victoria, BC V8W 3P6 /
/////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
|