attachment-0001

I'd hoped to make it clear in my announcement that people dropped out of the D.C. meeting because their companies adopted a restrictive travel policy based on the U.S. high terrorist alert. Most of the individuals who were forced to drop actually lobbied within for permission to travel. Sorry if, somehow, I hadn't made this clear. Thanks for adding the Microsoft Print/Imaging Conf, Bill. I'll add this to the table. Now the question is should we avoid this week or does this actually attract us to Seattle (ex. we could ask for a raise of hands regarding overlap to see if there is a PWG topic that does not conflict) ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <td>"Wagner,William" <WWagner@NetSilicon.com> 03/26/2003 12:05 PM <td>                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</table> Harry,   I agree with Lee. I see no reason to kill the Vancouver meeting.  Early May seems a good rescheduling for the April meeting (although I do not fully understand on what grounds people dropped out of the April meeting.)    Also, unless it has been changed, I understand that there is a  Microsoft Printing and Imaging Conference in Redmond on June 5-6.   Bill Wagner -----Original Message----- From: Farrell, Lee [mailto:Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 1:55 PM 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. <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 ----------------------------------------------