PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule

PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule

PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule

Farrell, Lee Lee.Farrell at cda.canon.com
Wed Mar 26 14:19:59 EST 2003


Gail,
 
I suppose New York itself is not the critical item in my question about the October meeting.  [Although the idea of staying away from New York for all future business seems a bit unrealistic.  Surely by October, things will have settled down to an acceptable level of insecurity, no?]  I was just noticing that all future (proposed) locations seem to be on the western half of the Unitied States (Provo, Vancouver/Portland/Seattle, Las Vegas).  Are we trying to avoid *any* east-coast venues?
 
lee
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Gail Songer [mailto:gsonger at peerless.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:11 AM
To: Farrell, Lee; Harry Lewis; pwg at pwg.org
Subject: RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule



 

For those of you with travel restrictions, do you have enough history with them to have an idea of how long they might last?  Will we have to wait out the war and the orange alert?

 

I don't know about anyone else, but personally, I'm not too thrilled about traveling to New York.  (Says the girl who lives near a potential target for North Korean missiles)

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Farrell, Lee [mailto:Lee.Farrell at cda.canon.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 10:55 AM
To: Harry Lewis; pwg at pwg.org
Subject: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule

 

Harry,

 

What's the fundamental goal here?  To revisit the schedule for all future meetings in the year, or just up to (but not including) October?

 

Is there any reason not to try to "squeeze in" four [newly scheduled] meetings into the remainder of the year?  [For example, June 2-6, August 4-9, October 6-10 (why not still hold this in New York?), and December 1-5 seem reasonable goals for future meetings.  Eight week separation on average, but still allowing four face-to-face meetings for the rest of the year.  

 

Given that this organization has already cut down this year's schedule of meetings to only five, I would think that we should avoid reducing it to four if we can.

 

Any thoughts?

 

lee

=========================== 
Lee Farrell 
Canon Development Americas 
110 Innovation Drive 
Irvine, CA  92612 
(949) 856-7163 - voice 
(949) 856-7510 - fax 
lee.farrell at cda.canon.com 
=========================== 

-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 10:29 AM
To: pwg-announce at pwg.org
Subject: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule


To recover from cancelation of D.C. I've prepared a scheduling guide. 
 <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/misc/DCRecovery.pdf> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/misc/DCRecovery.pdf 

As you can see, two weeks in June appear to be the best alternatives. Please identify any conflicts / alignments I have missed. We need to settle on the next meeting date quickly so people can reschedule their canceled flights. People flying AA seem to have the shortest amount of time and we may not be able to reschedule within their 2 day deadline! In this case I recommend these people reschedule for the Provo meeting in October. 

PLEASE HOLD DISCUSSION OF THIS TOPIC ON pwg at pwg.org NOT pwg-announce! 

---------------------------------------------- 
Harry Lewis 
Chairman - ISTO Printer Working Group
IBM Printing Systems 
---------------------------------------------- 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/pwg/attachments/20030326/294607b7/attachment.html


More information about the Pwg mailing list