Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled

otroan@employees.org Tue, 10 March 2020 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 7557A3A0A0B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 13:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 KrzM5ly8Jxtj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 13:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84CC43A0A2B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 13:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (76.84-234-131.customer.lyse.net [84.234.131.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CCB44E11AC6; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:12:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B572D9B9C9; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:12:27 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
Subject: Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <7f59c9c4-79bc-9973-7db8-3cb5a73a6ff0@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:12:26 +0100
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <03BD12D8-344D-4A5F-837A-075CBCD207FD@employees.org>
References: <158386742797.16091.1025684270011519738@ietfa.amsl.com> <52EE5E3F-E83A-4F81-8F48-6B94AB0A5C7D@akamai.com> <4B6380B9-CBBB-4275-BDA6-F086D66D6DBA@cooperw.in> <A893CAF9-B9B3-4E1A-9D09-0EEEE996E635@akamai.com> <7f59c9c4-79bc-9973-7db8-3cb5a73a6ff0@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/N0X378R6kP7HYbNBeX7k4DYBkFU>
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: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:12:34 -0000

>>>   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.

A good decision indeed.
As soon as a significant set of the working group participants were remote, the meetings would "have" to go virtual anyway.
We don't have good tools at the moment for combining both a in-room participants and a large set of remotes. A lot easier then to have everyone remote.

Cheers,
Ole