IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [114attendees] [114all] Consultation on COVID management for IETF 115 London

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 16 August 2022 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: 114attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 114attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67E2C14F6EC for <114attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 13:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cu4tZ73oKEHE for <114attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 13:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa1-x34.google.com (mail-oa1-x34.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::34]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2188BC152585 for <114attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 13:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa1-x34.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1168e046c85so12901860fac.13 for <114attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 13:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=iiGc3plWo4iMvVobvsiW5BnA45E9QmsWxqlLk2pDCXc=; b=o1UP5EiDqOzsf1XNA/5lHtb+aKcSY8AdK2dzkfxhOFmoI5SbtadW1wfbEZy8U5eAdb HkU369SgnKRe/ewrlXSepHQnbGI9EEQVzf5ZSQ1H5il6JVWSEOcP5hFYEa/vVGH25Q2s XkiQtCtl31CnMNhA181XxcGIqtSfoCpkT1iH6KTe1FKMwZIuYfMDWh+xnCKLz8C/d65r bAiLTejfUSOAgyK0GuT+R+f9fEtbIfv9PTGu0ro1pRjmKjMTWTsAArI8esHEJVCEyEH7 OP7UolZliLc4M4HFL2wNYXeoE+9Hy6p2lhEp4G9dxfk3z4M3JeGYY++3DDosiz2x4XY4 rGBA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=iiGc3plWo4iMvVobvsiW5BnA45E9QmsWxqlLk2pDCXc=; b=PyXlGoUMK3697Gtpo5/y2olJNTtsE5bnUgPtO1noILxTe2NVVsYKH+JHZg4b0RzoZB PCtUImYp3oiSdnJmYW9MKt9vqJUZEyIeUoJhrJyE3X/dC/jBZQECz9BiFirA26tdnU65 J1R5ayHe4dVJw0ivkD1nfYCxXY2PfcrskITRWsBAjv4wToQiou7LdSLIpgEZpjw/kJoz RXZp1XPc7HtENZss71Aw0C2i6Jb22pTzJXBfQ2A9XHorm089+IVJkCJEmLQG/X9TRMVE H0WMENu5KI8qWYpSGI55I7NHuLeMgrh/FcG31797h8ghGQxKT3Hg2eZLjuheRH/RKFYQ 2ycQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo3yRokbrDjxTNQq0fQDzh5BOOfBd18qEgcKL/87tmYlOPONK73R pcY/LzH1zainQbm5HAx7wXZYaT1EHO0UUvOUJimr10vHGz7xkw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR7oLwpL/qnu0RLtNyomtZxj1NgxzfXInTkHIlUpuJY6Ld3/gwcL9yLflX5N+fANE3rbhF85UXRKG6Zv489GrdU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:41d5:b0:113:863e:9e3e with SMTP id z21-20020a05687041d500b00113863e9e3emr150772oac.12.1660681551498; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 13:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4B348C11-79CE-4E7E-9DFD-B5CE79224767@ietf.org> <2F1594AF-4729-4908-918E-CD2151639E23@samuelsmith.org> <9c06d39e-0a03-916f-89e3-eff9ed2231bf@petit-huguenin.org> <CF6F11B2-6E3D-45FD-B520-29FE7DA52658@live555.com> <df828417-9229-4f67-93bf-9de9202e1950@petit-huguenin.org> <LO0P123MB660168369A86618248E627B5A9679@LO0P123MB6601.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAMOjQcFkuBWOGPCwP=UFbodA15R79COvncHw-nm1YmFFoL1N+w@mail.gmail.com> <6aa68882-60bb-4a7c-ad84-51c58f7bd78a@evequefou.be> <B53FD62C-6AFD-4048-823E-F723A14C207B@gmail.com> <9e5b5853-2f5b-e5ab-19da-562f8a099b7b@joelhalpern.com> <CAPt1N1kiuq6PnQUkKbqekdhoJ-s8EXiUAOyYKt3ekZ94vNokyg@mail.gmail.com> <CAC8QAce=5fqe-cEtqT1Zp23HwdB1-fhA585YEpBTDowQBrDyEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=MkgpF7d65_NGGZkwB9AVHcC7jKBDeEymGRcna=RY2hw@mail.gmail.com> <F3FF62DC-7038-489E-9842-3A696F67EF5E@akamai.com> <EBC8AA7B-4C4F-4FD2-A67B-091A67938B47@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <EBC8AA7B-4C4F-4FD2-A67B-091A67938B47@gmx.de>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 16:25:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1mZr2KJ9xKjKmRyLADuigFiiEn+PUpzRYRN4c_Z1gdBcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
Cc: "114attendees@ietf.org" <114attendees@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f6650405e6618d07"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/114attendees/Oc8uotmbXXNg8lttWd7c64v5e0Y>
Subject: Re: [114attendees] [114all] Consultation on COVID management for IETF 115 London
X-BeenThere: 114attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 114 attendees <114attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/114attendees>, <mailto:114attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/114attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:114attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:114attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/114attendees>, <mailto:114attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 20:25:57 -0000

Why is popularity not the right metric? I think it is the right metric, but
only if there's a way to eliminate responses from people who wouldn't
actually attend IETF anyway. I don't know that that's particularly doable,
so this is always going to come down to a judgment call.

On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 4:13 PM Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:

>
>
> > On Aug 16, 2022, at 17:44, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I was pointing out that if we are /not/ doing online-only, then
> necessarily we have accepted as true the conjecture that meeting in person
> adds significant value. And that being the case, the metric for what policy
> to have for in-person meetings should not be "how many people will be
> infected with this policy" but rather "how many people will come with this
> policy."
>
> Wouldn't that turn a health policy/safety question into a popularity
> contest/convenience question? Since most IETF members seem not to be
> health/life-science experts I am with all respect not sure how useful this
> approach (popularity decision) would be.
> (For what it is worth, the more stringent masking policy proposed seems
> sane to me, as is requiring up-to-date vaccination.)
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> >
> > I fully agree.
> >
> > (It’d be nice if people trimmed duplicate signatures :)
> > --
> > 114attendees mailing list
> > 114attendees@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/114attendees
>
> --
> 114attendees mailing list
> 114attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/114attendees
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email