PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule

PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule

PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule

Harry Lewis harryl at us.ibm.com
Wed Mar 26 14:27:36 EST 2003


First priority goal is to recover from D.C. and schedule the next meeting 
for a time and place that has the greatest chance for success. Of course, 
we HAVE to make assumptions that travel restrictions will be lifted... we 
can't plan, otherwise. If we have another emergency, we handle it 
accordingly

I knew someone would make the suggestion to squeeze in the same number of 
meetings but I haven't worked up what this might look like. Suffice it to 
say

1. Calendaring is hard enough as it is (witness our strife in nailing down 
July 14 week
2. The minor changes I am proposing have enough people upset, already 
(paraphrasing...)
  - "What happened to all the East cost meetings"
  - "Why aren't we going to Canada... I was hoping to visit there"
3. D.C. is not a total loss as we are setting up phone bridges to 
accommodate much of the (PWG) business that needed to occur. Not as 
effective, but not a total loss

Many people have requested as quick a decision as possible. If we try to 
reswizzle the year, we'll be some time hammering that out. 

This is why I'm only recommending we basically hold the schedule we have 
(with some location change and slide July forward to bridge the gap to 
October.

---------------------------------------------- 
Harry Lewis 
IBM Printing Systems 
---------------------------------------------- 




"Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell at cda.canon.com>
03/26/2003 11:54 AM
 
        To:     Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, <pwg at pwg.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        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 

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/20030326/63a58d6d/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Pwg mailing list