Hall A Coordinating Committee Meeting, 
December 16, 8:00 EST.

Participants:
David Lhuillier (DL), Kees de Jager (CWdJ)
Nilanga Liyanage (NL), Ron Ransome (RR), Bodo Reitz (BR)



1) New Collaboration Members:

The following people were nominated to become members
of the Hall A collaboration:

a) Prof. Yunxiu Ye, 
   University of Science and Technology of China (USTC),Hefei,China
b) Prof. Yi Jiang, also USTC,
c) Dr. Hai-jiang Lu, also USTC,
d) Prof. Shuhua Zhou, China Atomic Energy Institute, Beijing China.

[ During the following business meeting of the Hall A Collaboration, 
  they were voted in. ]

2) Report from the Hall A Leader (CWdJ)

a) In the right septum a problem was finally located and repaired,
   it will be cooled down in February, and we will learn then,
   if this was the only remaining problem.
b) The DVCS experiment ended successfully, the data seems to be
   of high quality. The DVCS collaboration was disappointed about
   getting less statistics than originally foreseen. CWdJ pointed 
   out, that there were as well issues in the preparation of the 
   experiment as well as problems on the accelerator side concerning
   beam delivery.
c) Installation of BigBite is progressing very well, it remains to be 
   seen if the delay due to the extension of the DVCS running can
   be recovered.
d) A lot of work goes presently into the 12 GeV upgrade.

3) Hall A proposal review (BR)

a) Four proposals for 6 GeV experiments have been submitted, three
   of them have been accepted as Hall A proposals (DIS parity,
   EMC on the deuteron, Target single spin asymmetry);
   one proposal for 12 GeV initiatives has been submitted, which
   also has been accepted.
b) Standards for 12 GeV proposals are not very well defined, 
   therefore the requirements from Hall A were not as stringent
   this time as for 6 GeV proposals.
c) Proposals submitted to the Hall A review process need to be 
   in a "close-to-final" version, drafts can not be accepted.
d) The Schedule for the review was too tight, next time we will
   start the process a week earlier (relative to the PAC deadline).

4) Annual report 

a) BR will look for the tex-templates.
b) NL, RR, and CWdJ will take care of editing the report.
c) Deadline for submission of contributions will be February 1st, 2005.

5) PAC 27 (CWdJ)

a) The intention of Larry Cardman for PAC 27 was, to have only a 
   limited number of new 6 GeV proposals, due to the workload for the 
   PAC members related with the 12 GeV upgrade.
   Therefore CWdJ requested in a weekly Hall A meeting that only
   potentially A-rated proposals should be submitted. Nevertheless
   9 proposals from Hall A, 17 for the whole Lab have been submitted.
b) A discussion, whether the Hall A CC / Hall A collaboration should have 
   intervened and/or pre-select proposals, emerged. All CC members agreed
   that this would not be in the spirit of the Hall A collaboration.
   A formal message from the CC to the Hall A collaboration, 
   repeating the intention from JLab concerning the purpose of 
   PAC 27 would have been the only additional thing which could 
   have been done.

6) Meetings

a) There were some complaints about the scheduling of the Winter
   meeting end of December. This topic should be discussed 
   during the business meeting. Constraints are the 
   PAC proposal submission deadline and the PAC meeting itself.
   [it was discussed at the business meeting , however the people
    who complained were obviously not present - and therefore the 
    CC is waiting for more responses]
b) The addition of a physics workshop or an analysis workshop to 
   either the next summer meeting or the next winter meeting 
   was discussed - again it was suggested to put this discussion to 
   the business meeting.
   [ At the collaboration meeting, the general feeling was, that 
     either of it should be added to the Winter meeting, and that  
     one should alternate between analysis and physics workshop.
     The last analysis workshop was held December 2003 ]
c) NL suggested to invite C. Weiss to give a presentation at the 
   next Hall A meeting.

7) 12 GeV upgrade -> Do we need to change the way the Hall A collaboration 
   works?

a) The discussion should be postponed, until the plans for the instrumentation
   in Hall A is better defined.