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

RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule

From: Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 14:37:48 EST

  • Next message: Harry Lewis: "RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule"

    I've already anticipated the NYC fear factor (and responded to input I've
    received,privately) by recommending we move NYC to Provo in October. This
    has no effect on our schedule. Novell has already agreed.

    Please let's not launch a raging debate about how appropriate one fear is
    vs another.
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems
    ----------------------------------------------




    "Gail Songer" <gsonger@peerless.com>
    03/26/2003 12:11 PM
     
            To: "Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com>, Harry
    Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <pwg@pwg.org>
            cc:
            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

    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 - 14:38:10 EST