Re: [112attendees] Plenary last week -

[Alexandre PETRESCU <[e-mail]>]

Le 10/11/2021 à 15:41, Livingood, Jason a écrit :
> 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.

Do you think a null difference between PCR tests at arrival vs at
leaving the meeting does not constitute a guarantee?

Alex

> 
> 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$
>