----- "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.
In our western ignorance Paul and I hadn't even considered the possible impact of a Vancouver c4l on the May conference back east... but if people see that impact as greater than negligible, please speak up.