From jon.bosak@sun.com Wed May 23 10:38:54 2007 Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 10:38:31 -0700 (PDT) From: jon.bosak@sun.com Subject: Re: Proposal for the Location of the 2-day Face-to-Face meeting In-reply-to: To: RexJaeschke@hotmail.com Cc: patrick@durusau.net, dave.welsh@microsoft.com, Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com, frank@farance.com, jerry.smith@disa.mil, jon.bosak@sun.com, Leonard.Levine@disa.mil, ndw@nwalsh.com, lprice@txstruct.com, Richard.Barber@mindjet.com, robert_weir@us.ibm.com, steve.carton@retrievalsystems.com, timothy@schoechle.org, masonjd@y12.doe.gov, ktrainor@ligent.net X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-Authentication-warning: jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com: bosak set sender to jon.bosak@sun.com using -f | V1 members agreed to meet face-to-face on Jun 28-29 or Jul 2-3. I | expect we'll chose one of these options next Tuesday, so we can | make travel arrangements. | | Microsoft fully supports having this meeting. However, we believe | it should be held in a V1 member-neutral environment. | | We propose having the meeting at an airport hotel in Chicago (for example), | since that area is centrally located and well serviced by airlines. | Microsoft is willing to organize and pay for the meeting | facility. I'm not clear on how a facility paid for by Microsoft is more "member-neutral" than a facility paid for by IBM. Please explain. Also, please explain why the ownership of the venue makes any difference to the quality of our work. I don't believe that this has ever been raised as a consideration in any previous work of this committee. | Since this is only 5 weeks away, in order to book a hotel, we'll | need to move fast; that is, we'll need to agree on a location | (primary and, possibly, alternate) and get a rough head count | during the Tue meeting. We already agreed on Washington during our last phone conference. This location was agreeable to everyone, including Rex. I see no reason to change a decision already made and for which people have already begun making travel arrangements. Jon