attachment-0001

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 ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <td>"Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com> 03/26/2003 11:54 AM <td>                To:        Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <pwg@pwg.org>         cc:                 Subject:        RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule</table> 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. <a href=ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/misc/DCRecovery.pdf>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/misc/DCRecovery.pdf</a> 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 <a href=pwg@pwg.org>pwg@pwg.org</a> NOT pwg-announce! ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis Chairman - ISTO Printer Working Group IBM Printing Systems ----------------------------------------------