PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule

PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule

PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule

ElliottBradshaw at ElliottBradshaw at
Wed Mar 26 15:27:41 EST 2003

First of all, thanks to Harry for putting up with all probably
had other things you wanted to do this week.

That being said, it seems the "raging debate" genie is out of the bottle.

I am disappointed we had to cancel DC, but agree it was necessary.  It
would be interesting, as Bill suggests, to know whether no-travel policies
are blanket or based on destination.

For various philosophical reasons, I would be disappointed if we
re-scheduled away from NYC.  In addition, it is one of my favorite places
to go.

I guess the only reason for a quick discussion on Provo is because of
ticket change rules.  If someone can push back on AA and get them to relax
their policy, then we should be able to leave the schedule as it was, for
now, and discuss proposed changes with less haste.

As for this spring, under the circumstances I think a May meeting would be
hard to pull off.  The argument that we should keep five meetings is a good
one, but I think we may have to compromise this time.

I favor a meeting in June, and any of those weeks looks good to me.
Speaking just for me personally, I would keep it in Vancouver, but
obviously not if that would hurt attendance.

All that being said, I will support and thank Harry for whatever action he
deems best.


Elliott Bradshaw
Director, Software Engineering
Oak Technology Imaging Group
781 638-7534

                    don at                                                             
                    m                    To:     Harry Lewis <harryl at>               
                    Sent by:             cc:     thrasher at, pwg at             
                    owner-pwg at pwg.       Subject:     Re: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging   
                    org                   PWG schedule                                         
                    02:47 PM                                                                   

Why not leave December as Provo and have people schedule for that rather
than move everything around?  That WAS the plan.

 Don Wright                 don at

 Chair,  IEEE SA Standards Board
 Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
 f.wright at / f.wright at

 Director, Alliances & Standards
 Lexmark International
 740 New Circle Rd
 Lexington, Ky 40550
 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)

Harry Lewis <harryl at> on 03/26/2003 02:43:32 PM

Sent by:    owner-pwg at

To:    thrasher at
cc:    pwg at
Subject:    Re: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule

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
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems

thrasher at
Sent by: owner-pwg at
03/26/2003 12:02 PM

        To:     pwg at
        Subject:        Re: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG

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.


"Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell at> on 03/26/2003 01:54:34

Sent by:    owner-pwg at

To:    "Harry Lewis" <harryl at>, <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
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
(See attached file: C.htm)

#### C.htm has been removed from this note on March 26, 2003 by Harry

(See attached file: C.htm)

(See attached file: C.htm)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Pwg mailing list