Re: Registration details for IETF 108

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

To the community, not just to Jay,

I'm current on the mail thread as of when I hit "reply all", but am
replying here because that's point in the discussion I had an opinion
about.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 5:50 PM Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On 2/06/2020, at 10:39 AM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hiya,
>
> On 01/06/2020 23:14, Jay Daley wrote:
>
> Would it still apply when onsite meetings start to happen ?
>
> No decision has been made about that.
>
>
> Would it be sensible to promise/ensure that a community
> discussion that determines direction, within the bounds
> of practicality, precedes, rather than follows, that
> decision? FWIW, I think it would and it's important that
> that be the case. IOW, let's sort out our approach to
> this before the timeframe of IETF109.
>
>
> It would be excellent if that could happen.
>

Speaking only for myself, my IETF 107 wasn't actually canceled all at once,
but enough working group chairs and research group chairs canceled meetings
that I probably should have requested refunds then, instead of waiting for
the IESG's pronouncement. I might have still gone to Vancouver if the IESG
hadn't canceled the face-to-face meeting, but it would have been to show
support for the organization, not to get specific work done.

See the discussion about whether working groups have an incentive to meet
during IETF virtual meeting weeks for more details, but the community
really does have a lot of influence on the decision to resume in-person
meetings, whether anyone else thinks they do, or not.

So, I'm reading Stephan's point about IETF 109 as "if the community is
going to have an opinion about whether IETF 109 is virtual, we should
probably start that discussion, like, now". Did I misread that?

If I'm good so far, my questions are
on this mailing list, or elsewhere?
who's sending the first e-mail to start the discussion?

Best,

Spencer