Re: Rebooked venues selected for IETF 112, IETF 117, and IETF 120 meetings

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 04 June 2020 05:29 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993893A0746; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 22:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LkSYRHdi_yGp; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 22:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EEEC3A073D; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 22:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jgiRd-000EfR-VF; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 01:29:37 -0400
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 01:29:30 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
cc: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Rebooked venues selected for IETF 112, IETF 117, and IETF 120 meetings
Message-ID: <7A2EBA6B5707BE68D72BABD1@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <504A08DA-26F6-45B7-8612-63570269B0B1@ietf.org>
References: <76FFCB72A361CFEF11E51BB2@PSB> <F048C2CE-9FE8-4C95-BFE5-120FDC3F43F9@gmail.com> <979D9AC6E2C2F9D5DB383889@PSB> <504A08DA-26F6-45B7-8612-63570269B0B1@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/987qHKIaEHifmdSdzF7a3LGR0Hc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 05:29:42 -0000

Jay,

Understood and appreciated.  I was just trying to show that
things were not as simple as Fred's "predicate our actions on a
vaccine" comment seemed to imply.  Put differently, if we cancel
a f2f meeting (or decline to schedule it it the first place
because of something we can know far enough in advance) because
of the criteria in that (or a successor) assessment framework
then it is not a decision we make because "no vaccine is
available" (even if the absence of a vaccine led to governmental
decisions that ultimately interacted with the assessment
criteria.

I do hope that, given that those criteria were developed very
specifically for IETF 108 (I just skimmed through the references
you gave, all of which I've read in the past and didn't detect
any hint of generalization to other meetings) that the "short
consultation" you mention will occur early and without any
assumption that these specific criteria will be automatically
extended plus or minor fine tuning.

best,
   john


--On Thursday, June 4, 2020 16:40 +1200 Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
wrote:

> 
> 
>> On 4/06/2020, at 4:30 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
>> wrote:
> 
>> As a worst-case
>> example, suppose that Thailand imposes a similar rule for
>> November but hotels are open and meetings are welcome.
> 
> We now have an assessment framework [1] that was consulted on
> [2] and then used [3] to decide [4] on moving IETF 108 online.
> That specifically includes quarantine and self-isolation as
> "showstoppers".
> 
> While developed specifically for IETF 108 it was designed with
> possible future decisions in mind.  All it needs is a short
> consultation to adjust it from our experience and up to date
> knowledge.
> 
> Jay
> 
> [1]
> https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/108/assessment-framework-per
> son-vs-online-ietf-108-meeting/ [2]
> https://www.ietf.org/blog/assessment-criteria-decision-personv
> irtual-ietf-108/ [3]
> https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_108_Madrid_go_no-go_
> assessment.pdf [4]  https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf108-online/