I was anticipating that someone may begin to reach this conclusion:
>You indicated that a "first" occurred after three years: significant poor
>attendance of a large number of long time members attending. It would
>be interesting to note why that event occurred. Is it a trend? Is it a
>coincidence? Is it an indication as to the interest level of what is going
>on? The location is bad (a given)? I don't know the reason.
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't want anyone to interpret my difficulty
in attending NYC is a trend or lack of commitment to the PWG or it's efforts.
I don't particularly want to make a distinction between long term
and recently participating members, either. Working, contributing,
participating, productive members are ALL very important.
It's no secret that NYC is not a popular location with many of the
PWG members. Even though I have been one of the most vocal in this
regard, I would hope it is not perceived that NYC didn't "come off"
just due to location (as I've said, I've got my tickets in hand).
We all have schedules which become unmanageable at times. I would
expect any member to miss a meeting or two during a year full of
12 meetings. In the case of NYC, we are off to a bad start knowing
that Jay and Dave can't make it (without rehashing Jay's plea to change
the meeting). I guess, in this light, Jay's notion of a quorum is valid.
When I made the query, I said I didn't want to collapse the meeting.
It's beginning to look as if there wasn't much there in the first place.
I certainly don't want to initiate the collapse of anything greater!
I'm leaning toward not going to NYC. My greatest concern is Printer MIB.
I feel is that Randy will have to "cut and run" at some point, or we
miss the target and look for the next one. If someone explains to me
that the life of the printer MIB is in grave danger if NYC doesn't happen
then I'll most likely be there.
It sounds like most of our other endeavours are basically on hold until
November anyway, am I right?
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems