PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule

PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule

PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule

Dennis Carney dcarney at
Wed Mar 26 14:33:45 EST 2003

Bill brings up the Microsoft Printing and Imaging Conference on June 5-6.
The question would be whether this would go in the "Conflict" or
"Alignment" column of the table, since if the PWG meeting was in Seattle
the week of June 2-6, we could possibly consider this "Alignment".

Dennis Carney
IBM Printing Systems

                      <WWagner at NetSilic        To:       "Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell at>, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, <pwg at>  
            >                  cc:                                                                                                 
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule                                       
                      owner-pwg at                                                                                                            
                      03/26/03 12:05 PM                                                                                                            


I agree with Lee. I see no reason to kill the Vancouver meeting.  Early May
seems a good rescheduling for the April meeting (although I do not fully
understand on what grounds people dropped out of the April meeting.)

 Also, unless it has been changed, I understand that there is a  Microsoft
Printing and Imaging Conference in Redmond on June 5-6.

Bill Wagner
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Farrell, Lee [mailto:Lee.Farrell at]
      Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 1:55 PM
      To: Harry Lewis; pwg at
      Subject: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule


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

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

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

      To recover from cancelation of D.C. I've prepared a scheduling guide.

      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.


      Harry Lewis
      Chairman - ISTO Printer Working Group
      IBM Printing Systems

More information about the Pwg mailing list