Re: Assessment criteria for decision on in-person/virtual IETF 108

[Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]>]

(up-front disclaimer: this is a drive by commentary and I don't have any specific knowledge or skill in this area, I'm just an opinionated jerk on the internet. In my experience this makes me fit right in here...)

On Fri, May 8, 2020, at 08:10, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
>  El 7/5/20 23:42, "ietf en nombre de Jay Daley" <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
> 
>  * Feedback not to use the Madrid Tourism Site because "while this is probably a good source, there may be some delay in some of the touristic activities re-opening, that should not be part of our assessment". 
>  => This site is the primary site for informing visitors on the status of hotels, restaurants, and local transport, all of which are necessities..
> 
> [Jordi] Is the wrong site. There is a very simple thing to observe: It has NOT been updated since around 14 of March, and obviously the situation is not the same. There is a confinement de-escalation process, with 4 phases (0-3, one every 2 weeks unless it goes wrong) which started 2 weeks ago. There are central government sites with much accurate information, daily updated, but unfortunately only in Spanish. I'm speaking with officials and other trustable information sources every few days and there are 2 daily press conferences from the government (morning and afternoon) to confirm the progress and actions being taken.

If I was the king of the IETF, I'd probably be using two primary sources here:
1. the conference hotel. They will speak the local language and have very current local information.
2. the sponsor/host. They also presumably have contacts and specific experience.

The argument that "English language information sites may fail to be updated in a timely manner" is definitely a legit complaint and I agree with Jordi here that saying "if this site indicates that any form of local emergency conditions still prevail" is a bad standard to use if it does not provide current data.

In the degenerate case that this site was abandoned but left up, it would be impossible to ever hold a meeting in Madrid, as this site would continue to say it's unsafe. To the extent that this isn't the canonical primary Government source, I would favour going with the more authoritative version.

Having said that, I trust Jay and those assessing risk to make the right call if everything else says "go ahead" (including local contacts and Spanish language official sources) and this site is still last updated March 14 and still saying not to go ahead.

>  * (paraphrasing multiple people) “drop the US CDC because it is unreliable and/or political”. 
>  => The US CDC is what is referenced in our contracts and we have not identified a better alternative.
> 
> [Jordi] Having it in contracts means "nothing" if is biased, as it has been proved. It will be interesting to review several countries that have already started to go the "new normal" to see if the website has been updated on time, or it takes several days or weeks. I understand that it is one of the information sources, but should not be the only one specially if there is contradictory trustable information.

"if there is contradictory trustable information" -- I think you hit the nail on the head there. There needs to be a reliable metric for determining which contradictory information is trustable. I note that you didn't propose an alternative actionable source here, and Jay made it clear that the IETF has also not identified an alternative which is more trustable than the US CDC. Everyone is unreliable/political to a greater or lesser extent.

I think I see a good point Jordi is making which I paraphrase as: "use this source, but apply your own bullshit filter".

However, "all of our contracts have a force majeure clause that specifically lists the US CDC." is a really strong point in favour of keeping the CDC as a key input, since practicality does matter.

>  * Feedback to refer to US CDC travel advisory “at level 2 or below" rather than “below level 3”. 
>  => The nature of level 3 (avoid unnecessary travel) is why it is a disqualifier and if this change is made then that explanation is hidden.

I mean, "below level 3" and "at or below level 2" are mathematically identical anyway unless there's a level between 2 and 3. Sheesh. Bikeshedders gonna bikeshed.

Bron.

--
 Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
 [e-mail]