Re: [112attendees] Plenary last week -

["Livingood, Jason" <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Joel - no one can offer such a guarantee. The best decision if someone wishes to be 100% certain is to attend the meeting online. I think the online participant experience will be a great one as well.

Jason

On 11/10/21, 09:37, "112attendees on behalf of Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    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.
    Even when (I hope it is a "when") this pandemic has finally faded to low
    levels, there will be no guarantees.


    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
    >>
    >

    --
    112attendees mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/112attendees__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!XaQ0hYo56q9Q8sVGQBtRfXfD-7rsp0hnFheTkX1qqMHoMDc37HEuTKFSM7Bt4FuiASlsig$