Re: [112attendees] Plenary last week -

[Alexandre PETRESCU <[e-mail]>]

Le 10/11/2021 à 16:12, Joel Halpern Direct a écrit :
> I would be quite distressed if the IETF leadership described the
> regimen you ask for below ("commitment to realize the
> inhouse-designed protection means, test before, test after and
> publicize the results.") as any kind of guarantee.  And knowing the
> folks involved, I would be amazed if they used such a word to
> describe it.
> 
> Maybe you are using the word "guarantee" differently?

Maybe I would rather say this: provide best effort persuasive means to
ensure that spread is not realized during in-person meetings of IETF?

Alex

> 
> Yours, Joel
> 
> On 11/10/2021 10:04 AM, Alexandre PETRESCU wrote:
>> Le 10/11/2021 à 15:37, Joel M. Halpern a écrit :
>>> I find your phrasing misleading. No one can offer a guarantee of
>>>  non-spread.  Ever.  We do not guarantee you will not catch the
>>> flu at an IETF meeting.  Or any other communicable disease.
>> 
>> Yes.  But I would not simply equate covid to any kind of other 
>> communicable disease.
>> 
>> First, covid is deadly much more than (in)flu(enza), for example.
>> 
>> Second, covid is transmitted by simply being next to the other -
>> breath, as compared to other more complex transmissions like
>> touching, spit, blood exchange, reuse common objects, moustique
>> bite, or so.
>> 
>> I sometimes fear that whenever one is behind some person in the
>> street and feels the smell of that person, that could be a risk of 
>> transmission.  I smell that even while wearing a fully-qualified
>> mask.
>> 
>> Third, no other illness has previously been communicated that far
>> that fast.
>> 
>>> Even when (I hope it is a "when") this pandemic has finally faded
>>> to low levels, there will be no guarantees.
>> 
>> Maybe it is a 'when' and it would be good.
>> 
>> But if it is not a 'when', then what would be another way (other
>> than meetings with guarantees) out of it?
>> 
>> Live with it?  Does one fully appreciates what it means to 'live
>> with it' or does one tell _others_ to 'live with it'?
>> 
>> Otherwise,
>> 
>> There can be guarantees for in-person meetings, in a best effort
>> kind of way.
>> 
>> One would run a meeting with inhouse-designed protection means,
>> test PCR the input, and test PCR the output.  If the two are equal
>> then there is a 'guarantee'.
>> 
>> A 'claimed guarantee' would be a statement that there is a
>> commitment to realize the inhouse-designed protection means, test
>> before, test after and publicize the results.
>> 
>> The 'proven guarantee' would be only when the publicized results
>> were both 0.
>> 
>> Wouldnt one think that could qualify as 'guarantee', 'claimed
>> guarantee' and 'proven guarantee' respectively?
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yours, Joel
>>> 
>>> On 11/10/2021 9:26 AM, Alexandre PETRESCU wrote:
>>>> Le 10/11/2021 à 13:56, Andrew Campling a écrit :
>>>>> On 10. 11. 21 12:45, Petr Špacek wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> As a second data point (obviously anecdotal): I'm
>>>>>> heads-down in DNS stuff and don't follow internal IETF
>>>>>> policies or shmoo discussions, and still I had no problem
>>>>>> finding out about Plenary being a week earlier. In fact I
>>>>>> remember seeing the information at least three times -
>>>>>> despite me ignoring plenary on purpose:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I also saw multiple notifications of the change in the 
>>>>> scheduling of the plenary plus explanations of the reasons
>>>>> behind the experiment. It seemed pretty well publicised to me
>>>>> and in good time to allow for diary adjustments etc, noting
>>>>> that attendance would not be possible for everyone and that
>>>>> (I hope) the post-meeting review will reflect on the pros and
>>>>> cons of the approach.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Separately, I trust that the plenary will take place during
>>>>> the week of the main meeting in IETF 113, assuming that there
>>>>> is an in-person element for this meeting.
>>>> 
>>>> I think that, unless the organizers consider offering
>>>> guarantees of non-spread, there could be an important point to
>>>> make that we want first and foremost to not spread and hence
>>>> not to meet.
>>>> 
>>>> Of course, we could also want to meet even if we help the
>>>> spread, but in an advantageous ratio.
>>>> 
>>>> We might also think that it is those who invite that must make 
>>>> sure there is no spread, or we might think that it is the 
>>>> responsibility of those who come to ensure that.
>>>> 
>>>> (this 'no spread' aspect comes to my mind personally after
>>>> having some ups and downs between optimism and pesimism about
>>>> vaccines, treatments, tests, mechanical, biological, electronic
>>>> solutions)
>>>> 
>>>> Alex
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Andrew
>>>>> 
>>>>