[General] Post Deadline! papers

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Friends,

It looks as if Chandra has found an option within the SPIE framework that
will allow us to proceed in a semi-organized manner. Let us take advantage
of that. We also need to take advantage of our volunteers and help them as
much as possible.

Mary (Dr. Mary Fletcher and wife of Bob Hudgins) and Rachel (my wife, a
very quick learner) have volunteered to try and put together, in some form,
a presentation poster of the many people and positions of this 'group'.
They will not be able to read all of the email exchanges and extract the
necessary (and filter out the unnecessary) comments of the group. They will
need pointed inputs. I have volunteered to help them get started. To be
successful, this effort will required each member of the group to
contribute their own position (even if they are not planning on attending
the conference itself).

This group is a bunch of volunteers already. However, we are all, by our
natures, independent and 'mavericks' (and maybe over- committed). Trying to
organize an effort involving something that all of us hold dear will not be
easy. We can start with a few steps. You can:

   1. Identify if you will be able to attend the conference or not. We can
   post (& update) a probable list of attendees and titles of any papers
   submitted (accepted) on the website. Submit to subject: 'attendance'
   2. submit an individual position statement into the subject thread to be
   labeled 'positions'. It can be updated as new topics are discussed &
   integrated.
   3. identify topics for 'workshops' that you would be interested in
   attending. Submit to subject: 'topics'
   4. Volunteer to chair specific (or any of the) small workshops and to
   present (on the last morning) & to write up (within 2 weeks of the meeting)
   the meeting action/results/conclusions/etc. Submit to subject: 'volunteers'

Thank you,

Andrew
___________________________
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:18 AM, chandra <chandra at phys.uconn.edu> wrote:
Dear Friends:

I am delighted to see that our discussions are heading towards defining a
fruitful platform. As Martin has done; each of us need to unambiguously
define our position pertaining to fundamental postulates ("accepted
beliefs"); which are at the root of our individual theories for the
discussion, "Electron <--> Photon". This will help us down select and
define a very clear set of discussion-points that would be possible to
carry out within the 3-hour time we have on the Thursday morning.

Of course, we will be able to advance this discussion quite a bit over this
web-saved-emails, if all of us quickly define your positions regarding the
fundamental postulates behind the theories that we believe in and we are
using to advance your current models for electrons (photons). Then our
volunteer editors  can collect and group them. Then we can collectively
iterate a few times and then we finalize the discussion-focal points. If we
do this soon, we will have time to even re-assess whether we have succeeded
in down selecting the best set of discussion issues while email-based
discussion keeps on advancing.

Remember, even though ours is  "Special Conference" granted by SPIE; we
still need to conform to its basic rules behind the publication of SPIE
proceedings. Proceeding papers should be between 6 to 15 pages long, and
never to exceed 20-pages. *All papers in the proceeding must have assigned
conference numbers*. Obviously, our "discussion papers" do not have
numbers; as we have not submitted abstracts for these papers yet.

Here is a possible solution. My discussion with SPIE indicates that SPIE
will be happy to assign paper numbers like post deadline! Papers; if we
edit and group the output of our discussions into well-selected set of
papers (between 6 to 20 pages) and authored by appropriate set of
discussion participants. If all of you "sign up to this approach"; then we
need to pro-actively organize the discussions-points and
create*TENTATIVE* discussion
groups who will author specific discussion-papers. "Tentative" implies that
we should be able to re-organize our collective authorships, if necessary,
as we finalize the separation of discussion outcomes into a well-defined
set of papers.

Are all of you willing to organize our discussions issues with this mode of
publication by several sub-groups, yet to be defined?

Chandra.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150328/a0816534/attachment.htm>