[Rivet] Rivet "collaboration meeting"?

[Frank Siegert]

>> sounds interesting. I'd love to talk to them to convince them that
>> Pseudo-Sims are not a good idea :-) And to show them what we've already
>> done with Valya. But like James I'm not sure the Rivet meeting fits for
>> that.
>>
>> I'd also like to ask them if they'd contribute the ~80 analyses they
>> talk about.
>
> All this reminds me of Sezen Sekmen's and Sabine Kraml's talk at the
> DASPOS/DPHEP data preservation meeting at CERN in March. They have
> "started efforts on building an analysis code database where analysis
> code written by phenomenologists can be collected [and] are also working
> on a common format for such analysis codes". Their "main issue [with
> Rivet] is that Rivet is in principle for unfolded data. BSM results are
> however not unfolded, and will not be in the foreseeable future."
>
> I'd *LOVE* to write them back saying that there are about 80 BSM
> analyses in Rivet!!!

I don't know enough about the different approaches to judge. But to me
these two statements sound like it's important to work out a good
collaboration with Rivet-based BSM projects like AToM, on the one hand
to avoid upstream-vs-downstream issues as far as possible and on the
other hand to avoid the potential duplication of a "database and
common format for analysis codes".

Maybe we can have a phone meeting during those 3 days where we invite
them to discuss their approach?

Cheers,
Frank