RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> July conflict with IETF

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> <at> 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)
> 
> 
>