Re: fall meeting

At 07:03 AM 5/9/02 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>October 6/7 would be good.  For the March tech plenary, I suggest a 
>meeting over 2 days.  At the last tech plenary, 1 day wasn't enough time.

That is agreed.  But there was some thought that less than 2 days would be 
okay this time, given that we will will have a 2-day f2f less than two 
months before tech plen.  Also, anticipation that the Framework will be 
finished, and that we will want to spend a significant amount of time on 
outreach and liaison with the WGs.

But that detail can wait some time before final decision.

-Lofton.

>lynne
>
>
>At 02:16 PM 5/8/02, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>QAWG participants --
>>
>>We have had some preliminary discussion at the AC meeting about the next 
>>f2f after Montreal.  We are thinking Japan/Pacific in early October.  One 
>>option would be Tokyo in early October.  To avoid known conflicts, it 
>>would look like Mon-Tues, 6/7 October would be best.
>>
>>For perspective, we are looking at this approximate long-term schedule:
>>
>>Sept-Oct:  next Frm publication (at least FPWD of all parts?)
>>Oct:  meeting
>>Jan:  meeting and Last Call publication for all Frm parts.
>>March tech plenary:  1-day QAWG meeting; outreach/education/liaison about 
>>Framework.
>>
>>What are your thoughts on the proposed next meeting?
>>
>>-Lofton.