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 14:43:32 EST 2003


We can try (to nail the next meeting quickly). This is why I posted the 
scheduling guide. For those who need to reschedule flights to avoid 
penalty... my suggestion is to book into Provo in October. I don't believe 
rescheduling the entire year is feasible. 

If we churn on this (which it looks like we are) ... some people will be 
hosed. 
---------------------------------------------- 
Harry Lewis 
IBM Printing Systems 
---------------------------------------------- 




thrasher at lexmark.com
Sent by: owner-pwg at pwg.org
03/26/2003 12:02 PM
 
        To:     pwg at pwg.org
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG 
schedule



Since there are time constraints for the near term, can we just get the
very next F2F meeting scheduled
ASAP and look at further re-arrangements at that F2F...????

For me...using keywords instead of numbers.......:)

June 2-6    (preferable)
June 16-20  (acceptable)

Location options (no preference)... for either week.

JT



"Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell at cda.canon.com>@pwg.org on 03/26/2003 01:54:34
PM

Sent by:    owner-pwg at pwg.org


To:    "Harry Lewis" <harryl at us.ibm.com>, <pwg at pwg.org>
cc:
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
----------------------------------------------
(See attached file: C.htm)





#### C.htm has been removed from this note on March 26, 2003 by Harry 
Lewis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/pwg/attachments/20030326/d2c7f13f/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Pwg mailing list