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
Wed Mar 26 14:34:06 EST 2003

I'd hoped to make it clear in my announcement that people dropped out of 
the D.C. meeting because their companies adopted a restrictive travel 
policy based on the U.S. high terrorist alert. Most of the individuals who 
were forced to drop actually lobbied within for permission to travel. 
Sorry if, somehow, I hadn't made this clear.

Thanks for adding the Microsoft Print/Imaging Conf, Bill. I'll add this to 
the table. Now the question is should we avoid this week or does this 
actually attract us to Seattle (ex. we could ask for a raise of hands 
regarding overlap to see if there is a PWG topic that does not conflict)
Harry Lewis 
IBM Printing Systems 

"Wagner,William" <WWagner at>
03/26/2003 12:05 PM
        To:     "Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell at>, Harry 
Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, <pwg at>
        Subject:        RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG 

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) 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 
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 


Harry Lewis 
Chairman - ISTO Printer Working Group
IBM Printing Systems 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Pwg mailing list