Re: [112attendees] Plenary last week -

[Alexandre PETRESCU <[e-mail]>]

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
>