I'll go along with Don's choices.
Alan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 5:54 AM
> To: Harry Lewis
> Cc: pwg-announce at pwg.org> Subject: Re: PWG-ANNOUNCE> July conflict with IETF
>>>> My choices, in order of preference:
>> July 21
> Leave as is (July 14)
> June 16
>> **********************************************
> Don Wright don at lexmark.com>> Member, IEEE SA Standards Board
> PatCom Chair, SCC Liaison
> Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
>f.wright at ieee.org / f.wright at computer.org>> Director, Alliances & Standards
> Lexmark International
> 740 New Circle Rd
> Lexington, Ky 40550
> 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)
> **********************************************
>>>>>> "Harry Lewis" <harryl at us.ibm.com>@pwg.org on 11/25/2002 11:14:01 PM
>> Sent by: owner-pwg-announce at pwg.org>>> To: pwg-announce at pwg.org> cc:
> Subject: PWG-ANNOUNCE> July conflict with IETF
>>> It has been pointed out that our July 2003 meeting date (14-18) is the
> same week as the IETF meeting in Vienna.
>> I would like to gauge the severity of this conflict to PWG members and
> preferences should a our schedule need to be modified. If you have an
> opinion please indicate
>> 1. Prefer to keep current PWG July 14 -18 meeting date
> 2. Prefer to move PWG meeting to week of June 16
> 3. Prefer to move PWG meeting to week of July 21
>> I do not feel any other dates are viable due to the proximity of USA
> Independence Day and the common practice of extending this
> holiday with
> vacation.
>> No response will be considered a "don't care" NOT a "leave as is".
>> Please respond by Thursday Dec 12.
>> ----------------------------------------------
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
> ----------------------------------------------
> (See attached file: C.htm)
>>>