From puk@multi10.netcomi.com Tue Jan 27 23:30:29 1998 Received: from multi10.netcomi.com (puk@multi10.netcomi.com [204.58.155.210]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA23879 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:30:27 +0100 Received: (from puk@localhost) by multi10.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id QAA24622; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:29:51 -0600 Received: from dkuug.dk (dkuug.dk [193.88.44.89]) by multi10.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA24615 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:29:49 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22903 for SC24-list; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:54:30 +0100 Message-Id: <199801272154.WAA22903@dkuug.dk> Reply-To: "Richard Puk" From: "Richard Puk" X-Sequence: SC24@dkuug.dk 367 Errors-To: SC24-request@dkuug.dk Old-To: "Steve Carson" Cc: Subject: (SC24.367) SC24 Plenary Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:39:37 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.3 X-Loop: forwarded by puk@igraphics.com To: puk@rbc.dec.com Steve -- -----Original Message----- From: Steve Carson To: puk@rbc.dec.com Cc: SC24@dkuug.dk Date: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 12:47 PM Subject: Re: (SC24.361) SC24 Plenary >At 10:09 AM 1/27/98 -0800, Richard Puk wrote: >>Steve -- >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Steve Carson >>To: puk@rbc.dec.com >>Date: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 7:53 AM >>Subject: (SC24.361) SC24 Plenary >> >> >>>It has just been brought to my attention that SIGGRAPH98 is scheduled early >>>this year, on 19-24 July 1998 (in Orlando, Florida USA.) We currently have >>>the SC 24 1998 Plenary meeting scheduled for 16-22 July 1998 near London, >>>UK. This is a conflict since many of us will be attending SIGGRAPH. >> >>OOPS! I am definitely required to be at SIGGRAPH this year. >> >>> >>>Also, there is the issue of how much work there will be to do in our >>>Working Groups in conjunction with this year's Plenary meeting. We have >>>just completed some major pieces of work and the new work that we expect is >>>not in most cases begum yet. >>> >>>The above two facts suggest the following: >>> >>>1) Shorten this year's SC 24 plenary and WG meetings. In this regard we >>>need to hear from our WGs how many days of meeting time they require this >>>year before the SC 24 plenary. >> >>Won't there be some PNG review by then? There may also be some additional >>VRML work to get started. How about MPEG-4 relationships? >> > >The NP is currently on ballot with a close date of 17 March 1998. If the NP >is approved then we could start a CD ballot (as output of a previously >authorized meeting that we might hold in about April), but the ballot would >still be open at our July meeting. > Note that, if the meeting is held after SIGGRAPH, there would be time to run a 4-month FCD ballot provided that the document was ready to go on 17 March (assuming that the NP passes, of course). We could do the preliminary work necessary to have the FCD in Jean's hands so that she could automatically issue it if the NP passes. I know that this is squeezing things but otherwise we will have to hold an editing meeting probably in September or October which would delay things even further. >>> >>>2) Consider moving the shortened meeting and holding it in the USA >>>co-located with SIGGRAPH, to be held just before of just after SIGGRAPH. In >>>this regard I need to hear from the USA whether they would be able to host >>>a shortened SC 24 and WG meetings this summer. >>> >> >>OK by me. We would have to hold it in Orlando but we might be able to get >>the SIGGRAPH 98 committee to arrange for meeting space. > >Using SIGGRAPH facilities would overlap it with SIGGRAPH and I don't think >people would find that acceptable. I think that SIGGRAPH has enough leverage to provide meeting rooms before and after the conference. It should at least be investigated. > >I have made some preliminary checks and it looks like there is a >possibility at least that a host could be found if the US NB would offer to >host the meeting. Good. You have my vote. > >> >>How about alternative 3): >> >>3) Consider moing the SC24 meeting back to its proper timeframe (early June) >>and hold it somewhere in Europe that can actually host it at that time. >> > >I believe there are two problems with this: > >a) The four month rule on the formal announcement would force us to act >very quickly. I guess I forgot about this although the original approved date in Stockholm was for the end of May or thereabouts. > >b) If the meeting is much smaller than normal and much scaled back then it >will not be worth a separate trip just to attend a few days. I have been >approached by people in Europe and asked to consider shifting the meeting >to be adjacent to SIGGRAPH so that travel could be minimized. If the various NB's want to have it in Orlando adjacent to SIGGRAPH 98, its OK with me. -- Dick -------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard F. Puk Intelligraphics Incorporated 7644 Cortina Court, Carlsbad, California 92009-8206 USA Tel: +1-760-753-9027 Fax: +1-760-753-9027 E-Mail: puk@igraphics.com --------------------------------------------------------------------