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
----------------------------------------------
"Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell at cda.canon.com>
03/26/2003 11:54 AM
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, <pwg at pwg.org>
cc:
Subject: 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 at cda.canon.com
===========================
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 10:29 AM
To: pwg-announce at 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 at pwg.org NOT pwg-announce!
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
Chairman - ISTO Printer Working Group
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/pwg/attachments/20030326/63a58d6d/attachment-0001.html