Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Jordi,

Others have commented on other aspects of the situation, but I
want to ask a different sort of question to understand where you
are coming from (and very much from the perspective of someone
who has self-funded attendance to many IETF meeting).    The
IESG, in consultation with the IRTF Chair and after surveying WG
Chairs, has concluded that, were the meeting held, it would be
very unlikely to be productive and effective.   We second-guess
at lot of decisions around here, some of them for good reason,
but I see absolutely no basis for questioning the IESG's
conclusion about that especially because, given trends around
the world, there is reason to believe that attendance would go
down relative to current, registration-based estimates, from now.

So, even if hotel and air costs are sunk costs whether you fly
to Vancouver or not (and others have suggested that at least a
significant portion of them should not be and that rules that
are in place today are likely to be relaxed), assume the IESG's
conclusion about productivity and effectiveness was correct but
they decided to hold the meeting anyway.  That would give you
the opportunity to spend the airline and hotel money, fly to
Vancouver, spend more on onsite expenses there, and participate
in a non-productive and ineffective meeting.  I can't see a
reason why you (or anyone else) would want to do that.  Seems to
me it would be better to stay home, try to make remote
participation as effective as possible, save the marginal costs
of being in Vancouver for at week and the personal wear and tear
of airports and airlines (even if personal concerns about
infection are ignored), and move forward (again, even if you had
to write off expenditures already made).

What am I missing?

best,
   john


--On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 22:29 +0100 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<jordi.palet=[e-mail]> wrote:

> I understand that, but what we don't realize is that it is
> the same for a flu. Some people pass away with that, and
> vaccines are not a 100% secure option.
> 
>  
> 
> And people that is feeling well but has a flu, still go to
> work and conferences and so on.
> 
>  
> 
> I still believe that we only help to increase the fear. If we
> ask for participants to bring a test to be able to
> participate, then I agree, but not this way (read my previous
> email about the "Italian closure")..
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jordi
> 
> @jordipalet
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> El 10/3/20 21:33, "ietf en nombre de Olivier MJ
> Crépin-Leblond" <[e-mail] en nombre de
> [e-mail]> escribió:
> 
>  
> 
> I think you are missing the point. And I can say that because
> as late as a couple of weeks ago, I was missing the point too.
> As more and more countries are entering the tunnel of fear
> caused by Covid-19, one pattern that is emerging is the
> exponential growth of affected people. So 3 days ago you might
> have been in a country with very few cases, and then it all
> blows out of proportion at an alarming rate. The root reason
> of this, is that it appears that healthy segments of the
> population might feel very light unease, like having light
> flu-like symptoms, a slight headache, a persistent cough,
> nothing to worry about really. Many people who got tested
> positive went around their business for a number of days
> because they did not really feel ill. And indeed the
> overwhelming number of people catching this virus will sail
> through it in a few days with no lasting effects whatsoever.
> But they will act as carriers, vectors for spreading the virus
> further and this is where there is a big problem: a certain
> segment of the population appears to be particularly affected,
> particularly senior citizens and those with an already
> existing pathology, however mild that might be. The question
> we should be asking ourselves is: do we want to be vectors for
> transmitting the virus and pass it on to some people who might
> end up in critical condition from it? Through the cancellation
> of now 5 meetings that I was supposed to attend in March and
> April, I have already personally lost a lot of money. I hate
> it. Some hotels and airlines are now only starting to be ready
> to give me (partial) refunds under conditions, or change the
> dates of travel, but my losses for the time being are still
> real. My business is also suffering as I consciously know that
> we are heading for drastic confinement measures like that
> which were needed in countries that were affected so far - and
> watch as the week goes by how quickly things are happening.
> There is now mass cancellation of large gatherings and whilst
> I laughed about it and was quite upset about cancellations a
> couple of weeks ago, I now think it's the right thing. The
> sooner we stop the spread of Covid-19 the sooner we can go
> back to business. Whatever it takes. Kindest regards,
> 
> Olivier
> 
> On 10/03/2020 20:57, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
> Exactly! With this decision we just spread fear.
> 
>  
> 
> A total no-sense unless really Canada ban the meetings (and
> that will allow those that pre-paid NON-REFUNDABLE rates for
> hotels and flights, get it refunded).
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jordi
> 
> @jordipalet
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> El 10/3/20 20:46, "ietf en nombre de Mary B"
> <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]>
> escribió:
> 
>  
> 
> I think he stated his point very clearly - there is a broad
> range of risk perceptions about COVID-19.  I was all for
> hopping on a plane and going to Vancouver.  Actually, if I was
> gonna get sick, Vancouver is probably a much better place with
> better healthcare than the US.  
> 
>  
> 
> The worry and fear is just increasing people risks of getting
> sick on the off chance they are exposed.  Stress suppresses
> immune function. Of course, cookies and sodas do that as well. 
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mary. 
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 2:43 PM Salz, Rich
> <rsalz=[e-mail]..org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>    Agreed. I can also understand why the decision took until
>     now. Different people's risk perceptions differ so I'm
>     sure others will quite reasonably disagree with me on
>     this, but with all the behind-the-scenes stuff that had
>     to be considered, in addition to the ongoing (and many
>     v. recent) changes people's travel plans, I do totally
>     get why it took 'till today to make the call.
> 
> Good.  Share it with the rest of us.
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be
> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be
> for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and
> further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying,
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even
> if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited
> and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even
> if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must
> reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be
> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be
> for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and
> further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying,
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even
> if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited
> and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even
> if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must
> reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>