As for Adobe's travel policy, we were told not to travel until the end of the
first week in April. We'll probably get an update on the policy, soon.
-Rick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pwg at pwg.org [mailto:owner-pwg at pwg.org] On Behalf
> Of TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 12:42 PM
> To: don at lexmark.com; Farrell, Lee
> Cc: Gail Songer; Harry Lewis; pwg at pwg.org> Subject: RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule
>>> Yep - but I do fear the people that will (or not) reimburse
> for my travel expenses and sign my paycheck, who said "thou
> shalt not get on an airplane". I'm personally hoping that
> this gets lifted sooner than later (I have other travel
> planned for April ...), but until it happens we won't know on
> the HP side. Traditionally these kinds of things start out
> as a "ban" and then gradually relaxed - so if it follows
> form, May is probably iffy, June probable. This of course
> depends on how everything shakes out - if things start to
> stabilize, it'll probably happen sooner, but if things get
> worse, it could be longer.
>> bt
>> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:41 AM
> > To: Farrell, Lee
> > Cc: Gail Songer; Harry Lewis; pwg at pwg.org> > Subject: RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule
> >
> >
> >
> > I would agree with Lee.
> >
> > Not only do we need to maintain our rotational approach to
> > meeting locations (east, middle, west, east, middle,
> > west.....) but if we reduce the number of meetings to four, I
> > believe we will significantly slow down the work. There's no
> > rational reason to avoid Washington DC, NYC, etc. In fact, I
> > was in NYC for the start of the war and will be back there in
> > a little more than a week.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > FDR: "The only thing we have to fear is fear it'self -
> > nameless, unreasoning, unjustified, terror which paralyzes
> > needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
> >
> > Frank Herbert: "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
> > Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I
> > will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and
> > through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner
> > eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be
> > nothing. Only I will remain."
> >
> > Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty
> > to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty
> > nor safety."
> >
> > Thomas Jefferson: "I would rather be exposed to the
> > inconveniences attending to too much liberty than to those
> > attending to too small a degree of it."
> >
> > Jewel Kiltcher: "The things you fear are undefeatable, not by
> > their nature, but by your approach."
> >
> > and finally.....
> >
> > Robert Heinlein: "Anyone who clings to the historically
> > untrue -- and -- thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence
> > never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts
> > of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them
> > debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked
> > force, has settled more issues in history than has any other
> > factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its
> > worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid
> > for it with their lives and their freedoms."
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Charge on!!
> >
> > **********************************************
> > Don Wright don at lexmark.com> >
> > Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
> > 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)
> > **********************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > "Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell at cda.canon.com>@pwg.org on
> > 03/26/2003 02:19:59 PM
> >
> > Sent by: owner-pwg at pwg.org> >
> >
> > To: "Gail Songer" <gsonger at peerless.com>, "Harry Lewis"
> > <harryl at us.ibm.com>, <pwg at pwg.org>
> > cc:
> > Subject: RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule
> >
> >
> > Gail,
> >
> > I suppose New York itself is not the critical item in my
> > question about the October meeting. [Although the idea of
> > staying away from New York for all future business seems a
> > bit unrealistic. Surely by October, things will have settled
> > down to an acceptable level of insecurity, no?] I was just
> > noticing that all future (proposed) locations seem to be on
> > the western half of the Unitied States (Provo,
> > Vancouver/Portland/Seattle, Las Vegas). Are we trying to
> > avoid *any* east-coast venues?
> >
> > lee
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gail Songer [mailto:gsonger at peerless.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:11 AM
> > To: Farrell, Lee; Harry Lewis; pwg at pwg.org> > Subject: RE: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > For those of you with travel restrictions, do you have enough
> > history with them to have an idea of how long they might
> > last? Will we have to wait out the war and the orange alert?
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't know about anyone else, but personally, I'm not too
> > thrilled about traveling to New York. (Says the girl who
> > lives near a potential target for North Korean missiles)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Farrell, Lee [mailto:Lee.Farrell at cda.canon.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 10:55 AM
> > To: Harry Lewis; pwg at 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 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>
>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
> ----------------------------------------------
>> (See attached file: C.htm)
>>