attachment-0001

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1141" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV>No conference call.  Just an attempt to get things moving -- and focused on a quick decision for a June meeting.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>["Re-swizzling"?  I like it.]</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 3:53 PM To: Wagner,William Cc: Farrell, Lee; pwg@pwg.org Subject: RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule </DIV> To my knowledge these were not discussed in any conference call. I view this as a new proposal for re-swizzling the year trying to keep the 4 meetings in place. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <TD>"Wagner,William" <WWagner@NetSilicon.com> Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org 03/26/2003 04:12 PM <TD>                To:        "Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com>, <pwg@pwg.org>         cc:                 Subject:        RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule</TR></TBODY></TABLE> <TT>Looks good to me. (I assume some of these were discussed during a conference call?) What was the resolution relative to the June 5-6 Microsoft conflict/co-ordination. Bill W. -----Original Message----- From: Farrell, Lee [mailto:Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 5:59 PM To: pwg@pwg.org Subject: RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule So, as I understand it, the tally of comments seem to favor the following so far: June 2-6      Vancouver/Seattle/Portland/San Francisco/San Jose August 4-9    <TBD> -- (e.g., Boulder, CO or Minneapolis, MN or Montreal, Canada) October 6-10  Some "east coast venue" -- maybe even New York? December 1-5  Provo, UT Correct? [At least I hope we can agree on the June 2-6 part soon.] lee -----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 12:51 PM To: don@lexmark.com Cc: Gail Songer; Farrell, Lee; pwg@pwg.org Subject: RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule Well... gee... I'd hope we wouldn't go here but... here we go. I'm not passing judgement on people's phobias. I will observe that D.C. (not sure why we're even still talking about it) and NYC are the two places in the U.S. which have been bombed recently. I guess I can see how that might give some folks pause for concern. Look... I put a proposal on the table to recover from D.C. I EMPHASIZE that we're NOT completely missing the April meting. I am working with the WG chairs and ISTO as we speak to set up week long phone bridging to facilitate as much of the work as possible. Could it be possible that some people are as concerned about dinging their air miles as much as others are worried about picking up  radioactive socks? The counter proposal I'm hearing is to leave everything as it is (NYC included) for the rest of the year and try to schedule a May makeup. Does someone have a valid week in mind? Location? What about travel restrictions... that's only another month... month and 1/2. What happens when NYC roll around with light attendance? I actually thought moving Provo from Dec to Oct made a lot of sense.   ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- don@lexmark.com 03/26/2003 12:41 PM                To:        "Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com>        cc:        "Gail Songer" <gsonger@peerless.com>, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <pwg@pwg.org>        Subject:        RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule I would agree with Lee. Not only do we need to maintain our rotational approach to meeting locations (east, middle, west, east, middle, west.....) but if we reduce the number of meetings to four, I believe we will significantly slow down the work.  There's no rational reason to avoid Washington DC, NYC, etc.  In fact, I was in NYC for the start of the war and will be back there in a little more than a week. --- FDR: "The only thing we have to fear is fear it'self - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified, terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." Frank Herbert: "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Thomas Jefferson: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending to too much liberty than to those attending to too small a degree of it." Jewel Kiltcher: "The things you fear are undefeatable, not by their nature, but by your approach." and finally..... Robert Heinlein: "Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and -- thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms." ---- Charge on!! ********************************************** Don Wright                 don@lexmark.com Chair,  IEEE SA Standards Board Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@computer.org Director, Alliances & Standards Lexmark International 740 New Circle Rd Lexington, Ky 40550 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax) ********************************************** "Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com>@pwg.org on 03/26/2003 02:19:59 PM Sent by:    owner-pwg@pwg.org To:    "Gail Songer" <gsonger@peerless.com>, "Harry Lewis" <harryl@us.ibm.com>, <pwg@pwg.org> cc: Subject:    RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule Gail, I suppose New York itself is not the critical item in my question about the October meeting.  [Although the idea of staying away from New York for all future business seems a bit unrealistic.  Surely by October, things will have settled down to an acceptable level of insecurity, no?]  I was just noticing that all future (proposed) locations seem to be on the western half of the Unitied States (Provo, Vancouver/Portland/Seattle, Las Vegas). Are we trying to avoid *any* east-coast venues? lee -----Original Message----- From: Gail Songer [mailto:gsonger@peerless.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:11 AM To: Farrell, Lee; Harry Lewis; pwg@pwg.org Subject: RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule For those of you with travel restrictions, do you have enough history with them to have an idea of how long they might last?  Will we have to wait out the war and the orange alert? I don't know about anyone else, but personally, I'm not too thrilled about traveling to New York.  (Says the girl who lives near a potential target for North Korean missiles) -----Original Message----- From: Farrell, Lee [mailto:Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 10:55 AM To: Harry Lewis; pwg@pwg.org 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@cda.canon.com =========================== -----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 10:29 AM To: pwg-announce@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@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 </TT> </BODY></HTML>