From: Eduardo Guendelman To: Jeffrey E. <jeeyacationa.conaM Cc: Thom amlOfillei m Subject: WAY TO PROCEED CONCERNING THE ISSUE OF PEOPLE Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 3:10:06 PM Dear Jeffrey, To address your main concern, the issue of people, would you like us to for example start contacting people that could be interested in joining as the core of the center , the permanent staff, we may mention that you are behind this project for this purpose, so that they take the proposal seriously, would such an approach be ok with you? Or do you want us to work without specific names in mind, without contacting specific people just the being concerned for the momento with the principles on which the center will work? best regards, Eduardo From:1O-in 111h11N Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 3:38 PM To: Jeffrey E. Cc: Thom Subject: RE: comments from Thom Dear Jeffrey, thank for your quick feedback, good, we will try to focus then more the work plan and people first in our proposal to you, hope to be back to you soon with something good, best, Eduardo From: Jeffrey E. Deevacation@gmailcom] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 2:58 PM To: inroa MNIIR Subject: Re: comments from Thom I see little reason to build a building. when the people arc the key , its not a lab. I need to see the work proposal. . gravity is not enough. as perimeter has been going for years with little to show for it. On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Eduardo Guendelman wrote: Hi Jeffrey, I got these comments from Thom, which sound reasonable I looked in some detail at the IAS in Princeton, and the Perimeter Institute in Canada, to try to get some ideas. The thing that struck me most about both of them is their size ... in comparison to CECS, for example, they arc much larger than we should expect to be able to set up in the Bahamas, at the beginning. So, CECS is a better example But of course, we should be able to attract many short and long EFTA_R1 _00043003 EFTA01748102