[113attendees] Predicting go/no go dates for IETF113

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Thu, 17 February 2022 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Original-To: 113attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 113attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975C73A0E3A for <113attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:05:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O25aE1r6WHgb for <113attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:05:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (smtp.v6.rfc1035.com [IPv6:2001:4b10:100:7::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 928AB3A0E34 for <113attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:05:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wallace.rfc1035.com (hutch.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6AF132421481; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:05:37 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <07d87027-8162-b421-f157-6fff580d0b8b@go6.si>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:05:36 +0000
Cc: 113attendees@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8F1E4D76-18E1-4621-B70F-0FD290A32EF3@rfc1035.com>
References: <9989E0B6-A0F6-4A4C-A681-FDB6C046455D@staff.ietf.org> <718578905.42881.1645007735648@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <07d87027-8162-b421-f157-6fff580d0b8b@go6.si>
To: Jan Zorz <jan@go6.si>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/113attendees/EqAIR9lCZAaCJmS1gQfiWA7zFek>
Subject: [113attendees] Predicting go/no go dates for IETF113
X-BeenThere: 113attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 113 attendees <113attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/113attendees>, <mailto:113attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/113attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:113attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:113attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/113attendees>, <mailto:113attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:05:48 -0000

On 17 Feb 2022, at 17:34, Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 16/02/2022 11:35, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>> Is there a final "go/no go" date for this latter type of meeting
>> cancellation? (perhaps in the past already?)
>> 
>> I mean, is there a date after which I can be sure that unless some real
>> "force majeure" event happens the meeting will be held in person, and make my
>> bookings with a bit more certainty?
> 
> I'm also interested if someone from IETF meeting organization team could answer
> this question...

If the IETF has someone with that degree of foresight, could they please tell me the winning numbers for the national lottery this weekend? :-)

To be less glib, nobody can say for certainty when or if the physical meeting will get cancelled. Health and travel regulations could change at any moment. Or a new variant of COVID19 erupts out of nowhere, etc, etc. Even after some hypothetical go/no go date,

If force majeure kicks in, I would expect reasonable hotels and airlines to offer full refunds one way or another. Like they did when our physical meeting in Vancouver moved on-line at the last minute. If they don't refund your money, you should be covered by your travel insurance. Most insurers will pay out provided your government's advice at the time of booking said travel would be OK. [But if you picked a cheapskate insurer with too much small print, you chose poorly.] And of course, we can be sure the IETF would do the Right Thing when it comes to refunding meeting fees.

It's really simple. If someone thinks the risks of a physical meeting are too great or they doubt they'd get their money back if IETF113 goes on-line only, stay home and take part remotely. If not, see you in Vienna!