Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Wed, 11 March 2020 02:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.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 65E653A0E72 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 19:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 kJDiyrCedqj2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 19:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x135.google.com (mail-il1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18F0A3A0F54 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 19:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x135.google.com with SMTP id a6so541793ilc.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 19:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Izjpzf+n4Ij8aztTTp9+dMf4xpVPpHKwa+mRCmgjN+g=; b=H69Yy8tal/QGnU64FuWK4WfsKDhTiit3gh1jK/gWSo0/VtQz6BUEE7lKmo08MN9e6S 1bIu9U7UpbjC2IvzgVU8SZD2f8UAS3RdduTZfhelRMz4c394R6ryBO3xYesUIYE05Z66 /h3ZC2rZuKhZqZYPu3ulqc3QD/zh+cYwcYI1SNiAs9bXjjxyd/7Qk9c/ZjpMpbY6ULsg JPZ4O4pOTdcCyGEqBP0nMjl0RPCmw9+/5Pv4QHVzTr1jlfHrypN/sWbRMfL6axY0wkmY Gygzk12oiBxxqOru8GNxfyZWwhwN8JHfRl9J0OrIBMzqQ+H4DFgQAbnYPkDgK634I6gX ljGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Izjpzf+n4Ij8aztTTp9+dMf4xpVPpHKwa+mRCmgjN+g=; b=l1Hme94TT7ca9Uc6pEXRIX9gTZM6Brwbh9MWL1VlXyIMARkDd7aPQGOccIy54RnqAz TJ/2ojmT7vmWhi5AOh9buOdtTRwmtojavRiiOsSDXDqDJw8pjZ7HdSdpZ01Ga2S9seNd lr3g/li1T0jPO4pNxs4fpZUE+7i6aykwQaZ/SQ5HWwUxPX4giooJbWnxMgQj9KXRXMGl kAnM4RBVoXNE/JJ2QgSqgXX8hX/rPqSprq2/ic5ddaEA3nYV9ftvv9vt1hdPyULdWI2B AxX7L4KhaMbxvzLHRSsOLIYsz2oSsbqdrRDYKTKW0cq+x6eCXVQVp0gF6Ca4gKgyaO42 BOCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1o8F+5ioMuTJP1Gv5vsRWUAYwbLSlyXxCiGBNtc3/qc2psdIwi I7bpoIup8TPuIOpURbbNOKjJL09QKKoV/QaK+r02zhQb
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vsLdQqUeTd2GSPmx/nyOn0OR/qGFGhtIRIRZd7v?= =?utf-8?q?gTif4tq9a2LLlaRDMF+jxuksbkjn+pPEf5a0rIMm7Gv6f/I=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:ca90:: with SMTP id t16mr877869ilo.218.1583892749819; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 19:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <8CC7A415-6D80-4C22-ADDE-F9544A9E01B3@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <8CC7A415-6D80-4C22-ADDE-F9544A9E01B3@ietf.org>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 12:12:18 +1000
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn33y4B4VUjHQTg93ksHPaQa9JdXR-EQ48fD-MrSFTpzgw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hJ8qr6EbsmtCm4p68Uzeft-SfyE>
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: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 02:12:37 -0000

I am one of the people who communicated with Jay privately, and his
replies to me privately, and here publicly completely align: What he
said to me, is what he has said here.

-George

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:07 PM Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Rich
>
> On 11/03/2020, at 8:42 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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.
>
>
> Let me add to Adam’s helpful note, speaking only for the LLC here.
>
> I certainly intend to have an internal debrief to identify any outstanding issues and lessons for next time and then share details of that and get comment.  This is important as a number of decisions were made on the fly and we need to circle back to have those validated/challenged.  For example, our decision to follow public health advice was made in the absence of a community decision and was maintained despite a few community members expressing very strong disagreement (largely in private).
>
> I don’t however see any benefit in producing the kind of detailed timeline of actions and decisions that is normally part of a root cause analysis.  This is not a crash investigation so we don’t need to get forensic.
>
> Yes the LLC track was entirely separate and focused primarily on the health risk.  I would welcome a discussion about the reasoning and decision making around this as part of the process outlined above.
>
> Finally, perhaps the most important thing to note about the decision making is that the IESG followed an evidence-based process, focused on their area of control and made a rational decision based on the data they collected.  That’s not easy in these circumstances.
>
> Jay
>
> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> jay@ietf.org
> +64 21 678840
>