Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 (was: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

I moved the thread off ietf@.

At 07:45 AM 13-03-2020, John C Klensin wrote:
>We seem to be making strong assumptions that we will be able to
>hold IETF 108 as planned, with f2f meetings in Madrid in late
>July.  I suggest that the IESG (and the rest of us) think about
>that and so sooner rather than later.  Our implicit assumption
>is that things will settle down enough that IETF 108 can be held
>normally and that we do not need to worry about a "new normal".
>The infectious disease specialists and epidemiologists among my
>colleagues is this novel coronavirus really is new in several
>ways and, consequently, that we really cannot predict how
>quickly the period of maximal spread and risks will wind down by
>July.  That may be likely, but it is by no means certain.

I discussed the above question recently for reasons unrelated to the 
IETF.  There is a virus which is prevalent over the world.  There are 
health-related advisories from recognized agencies.  Is it reasonable 
to assume that a meeting can be held, as usual, four months from now?

>So, it seems to me that we should be sorting out possible issues
>and making contingency plans about the conditions under which
>IETF 108 would need to be virtual too, including both things
>tied to the first or second meeting of the year and to how we do
>things.   The circumstances that came upon us in the last six
>weeks gave us little choice other than making quick decisions.
>I personally think that, on balance, the IESG made reasonable
>decisions and handled things about as well as they could be
>handled, including the short-notice cancellation/ virtual
>conversion and reformed agenda.  But we'd best not have that
>"whoops, big surprise" situation followed by a scramble again,
>if only because of the damage that the loss of the cross-area
>review that has occurred at f2f meetings since the IETF started
>could do to the quality of our work.

The problem with "virtual" is that you (in general) end up with the 
"attendance" problem.  You also end up having to make rules which 
favors a large set of people and which are unfavorable to another 
large set of people.  If a person claims surprise, the person 
determining whether the request is valid would look up the 
credentials of the person and wonder who picked that person to make 
reasonable decisions.

>So, let us -- soon, even if not in the next two weeks -- ask
>ourselves such questions as to how the Nomcom will function if
>it cannot meet f2f at IETF 108 (or 109), whether the possible
>need for the Nomcom to do much more of its work remotely might
>affect whatever advice is given to the ISOC President/CEO about
>candidates for Nomcom Chair, and so on.   And then let's repeat
>that with a review of all of the other issues tied to the
>"second meeting" and how IETF 108 could be made maximally
>effective if we were forced to hold it virtually... including,
>of course, how that decision would be made and by whom.

One alternative is for the persons on the committee to fly to some 
location if they believe that their work is important enough for them 
to do that.  If I go by the numbers, there are currently 551 persons 
willing to do that.  I don't know how many of them are eligible and 
how many would volunteer.

>We could still view that as short-term with longer-term analysis
>and solutions to follow.  But July isn't that far away and, if
>things don't get better, we should not have to deal with any
>plausibly-foreseeable situations by being surprised and
>improvising.

The message from the IESG contains a set of choices instead of an 
analysis.  The current path leads to of inconsistent decisions.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy