PWG Mail Archive: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG

PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule

From: Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 14:27:36 EST

  • Next message: Dennis Carney: "RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule"

    First priority goal is to recover from D.C. and schedule the next meeting
    for a time and place that has the greatest chance for success. Of course,
    we HAVE to make assumptions that travel restrictions will be lifted... we
    can't plan, otherwise. If we have another emergency, we handle it
    accordingly

    I knew someone would make the suggestion to squeeze in the same number of
    meetings but I haven't worked up what this might look like. Suffice it to
    say

    1. Calendaring is hard enough as it is (witness our strife in nailing down
    July 14 week
    2. The minor changes I am proposing have enough people upset, already
    (paraphrasing...)
      - "What happened to all the East cost meetings"
      - "Why aren't we going to Canada... I was hoping to visit there"
    3. D.C. is not a total loss as we are setting up phone bridges to
    accommodate much of the (PWG) business that needed to occur. Not as
    effective, but not a total loss

    Many people have requested as quick a decision as possible. If we try to
    reswizzle the year, we'll be some time hammering that out.

    This is why I'm only recommending we basically hold the schedule we have
    (with some location change and slide July forward to bridge the gap to
    October.

    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems
    ----------------------------------------------

    "Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com>
    03/26/2003 11:54 AM
     
            To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <pwg@pwg.org>
            cc:
            Subject: 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

    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
    ----------------------------------------------

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 26 2003 - 14:27:57 EST