Re: Further update on COVID-19 (Coronavirus) and IETF 107 Vancouver

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Keeping in mind that none of us can speak for anyone else - I can certainly
fly to Vancouver and see who else shows up to talk, and no one is going to
make any of us show up against our will...

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:10 AM Joseph Potvin <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> +1  In my assessment, IETF107 presents a rare but valuable opportunity for
> the most Internet-knowledgeable community there is, to competently
> demonstrate to the world how to calmly but rapidly shift a large
> in-person+online conference to a successful Plan B full-online conference.
> Any weaknesses in performance would be worth addressing as guidance (and as
> practical utilities) for other international events that are otherwise
> facing outright cancellation. What better community than this to illustrate
> how to minimize the negative impacts?
>

I'm currently participating in an all-virtual meeting in another SDO, and
their e-mail server is running about 20 minutes behind direct mail to
participants, so nobody is quite sure what the current discussion state is,
depending on whether or not you're addressed directly in the e-mail.

Canceling completely now is also an excellent way to find out that we are
nowhere near able to go Plan B full-online successfully. If someone in this
thread can speak authoritatively about how well prepared we are, I'd love
to hear from them. Until we hear from them ...

I'm OK with where we are right now - if things are still going well in
three weeks, some of us can meet in person, and other people can
participate remotely, and that's what we do, anyway. If Canada closes its
borders, we'll still have an opportunity to find out how well we have
prepared for Plan B, and how much work we have to do to achieve success.

Make good choices, of course. And do be safe, according to your own
informed definition of "safe".

Best,

Spencer


> "Precaution ... simply urges that time and space be found to get things
> right ... the crux of precaution lies in the rigour of taking similar care
> in avoiding the scientific error of mistakenly assuming safety, to avoiding
> mistakenly assuming harm." (The Guardian: "Why the precautionary principle
> matters"
> https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/08/precautionary-principle-science-policy
> ) This article is helpful because it clearly distinguishes "risk" from
> "uncertainty". Regular flu has known risk factors. Several key
> characteristics of COVID-19 remain uncertain.
>
> At minimum, prompt work towards a Plan B also provides a way "to
> pressure-test preparedness and emergency response plans" (Emergency
> Preparedness Partnerships
> https://emergencypreparednesspartnerships.com/a-blast-from-the-past-influenza/
> )
>
> Business continuity plans prioritize resilience, not rigidity.
>
> Joseph Potvin
> Executive Director, Xalgorithms Foundation
> Mobile: [phone]
> [e-mail]
> https://www.xalgorithms.org
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:21 AM Andrew Alston <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I think that holding this meeting is a risky move – and I’m
>> not sure it’s a responsible one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes – it can be argued that the individuals who are travelling to the
>> meeting are taking the risk knowingly and be it on their heads – the
>> problem is – it goes far beyond those individuals.  Multiple
>> multi-nationals are shutting down offices in various places, there are
>> corporate travel bans going into effect (and the current statement says
>> that if you register and want a refund, it has to be a government imposed
>> travel ban)
>>
>>
>>
>> Right now from my perspective – we’ve been lucky over here in Africa
>> where it hasn’t arrived yet – but – if it does – there is no real
>> infrastructure to deal with something like this – and it could be
>> absolutely disastrous – and so – I certainly don’t want to be anywhere near
>> anyone that has been in a large conference, with people all over the world,
>> when the virus can be carried without any symptoms – transmitted – and you
>> can be all the way back home again before you even know you have it.
>>
>>
>>
>> So – I question if holding a meeting like this at this point in time –
>> rather than using the technology we have available and going entirely
>> remote – is really a responsible choice.
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ietf <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Phillip Hallam-Baker
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 26 February 2020 16:56
>> *To:* Davey Song <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc:* IETF Rinse Repeat <[e-mail]>; IETF Announcement List <
>> [e-mail]>
>> *Subject:* Re: Further update on COVID-19 (Coronavirus) and IETF 107
>> Vancouver
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:42 AM Davey Song <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> What I can do to help the situation as a Chinese IETFer,  is to cancel
>> all travel and stay at home....
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks to the Internet, I can participate IETF remotely. Good luck!
>>
>>
>>
>> Davey
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly. The point I am not seeing raised here is whether it is a good
>> idea to hold an international meeting and potentially spread the virus
>> further. This is not just about us.
>>
>>
>>
>> This may not turn out to be a re-run of SARS. A large amount of the
>> infrastructure that existed to deal with pandemics has been shuttered
>> since. The way our political elites manage risk is to observe when disaster
>> has been avoided and conclude that this shows the controls intended to
>> mitigate those risks were unnecessary.
>>
>>
>>
>> A question that we may well have to consider is the possibility that
>> Madrid is cancelled by government fiat. We are currently in the complacency
>> phase, what will follow if matters continue is panic.
>>
>