attachment-0001

No one know better than me (and Ami!) about the waste in setting up and tearing down! As I said. Any future planning is based on the assumption of a lift in travel restrictions. I my mind, this supports the June proposal vs. trying to squeeze in a makeup in May. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <td>"Wagner,William" <WWagner@NetSilicon.com> 03/26/2003 12:57 PM <td>                To:        Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <thrasher@lexmark.com>         cc:        <pwg@pwg.org>         Subject:        RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule</table> Harry,   Not intending to "churn" , but Gail's question (and my poorly phrased one) of what is the criteria by which the companies of some significant members of the group ban travel is a necessary consideration for the next meeting.  As you know, setting up and then canceling a meeting is a lot of wasted effort (and money) for you and for the rest of us. We would want to have some confidence that members will be able to come. Of course, we may not know what the criteria are. But if they are  distance or location limitations, that may help assure a good pick. If it is the fact that there is military action or a high terrorist code, that may well go  on for quite a long time.   Bill Wagner -----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 2:44 PM To: thrasher@lexmark.com Cc: pwg@pwg.org 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 hosed. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td width=2%> <td width=26%>thrasher@lexmark.com Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org 03/26/2003 12:02 PM <td width=70%>               To:        pwg@pwg.org        cc:                Subject:        Re: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule</table> <tt> 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...????</tt> <tt> For me...using keywords instead of numbers.......:)</tt> <tt> June 2-6    (preferable) June 16-20  (acceptable)</tt> <tt> Location options (no preference)... for either week.</tt> <tt> JT</tt> <tt> "Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com>@pwg.org on 03/26/2003 01:54:34 PM</tt> <tt> Sent by:    owner-pwg@pwg.org</tt> <tt> To:    "Harry Lewis" <harryl@us.ibm.com>, <pwg@pwg.org> cc: Subject:    PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule</tt> <tt> Harry,</tt> <tt> 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?</tt> <tt> 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.</tt> <tt> 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.</tt> <tt> Any thoughts?</tt> <tt> 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 ===========================</tt> <tt> -----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</tt> <tt> 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</tt> <tt> 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.</tt> <tt> PLEASE HOLD DISCUSSION OF THIS TOPIC ON pwg@pwg.org NOT pwg-announce!</tt> <tt> ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis Chairman - ISTO Printer Working Group IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- (See attached file: C.htm)</tt> #### C.htm has been removed from this note on March 26, 2003 by Harry Lewis