On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:14, MJ Suhonos <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> More specifically, I wonder what thoughts people have about how a VanC4L2011 might affect / be affected by the C4L North proposal, and Eric's comment that C4L was originally "envisioned as an Access USA". There seems to be a strong contingent on both sides of the 49th parallel these days.
Not concerned at all given that C4LC is scheduled for late February.
Should be long enough after C4LN and between Access conferences so as
not to interfere.
I'd encourage the Vancouver contingent to put forward its proposal; if
it gets the most votes, the community has spoken.