Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 10 March 2020 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CAC13A09F3 for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 13:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tqEweSvuQu2V for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 13:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::535]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70F553A09E2 for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 13:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b1so6785962pgm.8 for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 13:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jHb/1dfQ+i+TxlQuh/TO1nsgo36ItOpbQAVP+ikG6zA=; b=vhvCAPiIP8j4oa74mQL0jza8QgvcUUcA+NufrkJiN8KkBPiodukfjT07dgBypViWVj B55SDKGF5FcJVxpUm9PY+c8oHIdahQCJKM+4woU+PpSlEIaHloc3LwR96z/5QfqaR6pK hfHf+QRTxuJAQ4IJ5Hrp7SQj2yckdM5f8N5LoPXkYJKbN/uTXXfKDaWKpyBszhddmKt0 fQQgM2Cm4KEqVvqXNuKESdztDLOZPq+aX/O/5XJ3RDKLLTihY5qGI1FOpKO8x1pYh6TB Mp9Ie0/Cc1Ry/MNJmdsRKJpnw3dBP6U6b55AeDsP61gs66EXtcDAxv3t/L435Hk9xpJx eZAg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jHb/1dfQ+i+TxlQuh/TO1nsgo36ItOpbQAVP+ikG6zA=; b=aage5+x6YOLs6bChkODs/fyJKr5EFaqs9mFES/si2RMrxvY1M+EszvhsCsKI7KWYU1 eI2jCG05lRVAJXE60XSRtkAxDhXJ7HxwMk2n5JZa07PC0YoVZ5MWTwWSonsDMFtHba+r 4Di9Ru4urLlh2jFU4/wYxM2q7sUUgQvSEWeMbI5/HVdWDDEvG3vPV5WZQiicu2RbPVb1 mrWYToyPEjxifoLcSmTRzRE2O976yH0MXn0BNB5Hfe9jiD9MrKjzj6diMdqMepB3EeRE yhgA+bApdx2See4yJWRYe3Gg3BPQH+p2eLfP0G5xD53dKDR33tc/1DoqpMuii/wpBChn R0VA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3jHJf81NzgLuLAdsFcRe81MV7yZ8g4rkIwv60QCOGT9dC4iXir gD/A5hyungejAKlxwacdCyubObLE
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vstj/HNXZhjqu7c78uZuKcRqhzmPUMD3YI7kKKm?= =?utf-8?q?5PtjN646J9izoYfdYoWFY1pV62I4i/2fJw=3D=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9ab1:: with SMTP id x17mr23078839pfi.36.1583870400610; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 13:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id e28sm48185118pgn.21.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Mar 2020 13:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled
To: "Salz, Rich" <>, Alissa Cooper <>
Cc: "" <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:59:57 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:00:03 -0000

On 11-Mar-20 08:42, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>    The IESG and the IRTF Chair have been assessing the viability of the in-person meeting based on the community’s ability to be productive. Assessment of health concerns has been the job of the LLC, on a separate track. 
> Could the LLC have cancelled the meeting?  How separate were the tracks?  The IESG didn't consider health concerns at all?
> To put it in common business terms, I think we're owed a root cause analysis of the full decision-making process by all parties. 

Why? (I do agree that those terms are common business buzzwords.)

You may not share my perception, which is that most of the company travel bans that have emerged in the last few weeks are just the standard reaction by accounting departments to a business downturn, and nothing directly to do with health risks. And the IESG has reacted to the consequences of those travel bans for the practical aspects of the meeting, again nothing directly to do with health risks. I see no value in the details of that beyond what Alissa just said.