Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 13 March 2020 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 B741A3A08EC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.669
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 59sIGJPMc-Ga for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2E553A08F0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 02DIf3kv019015 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:41:03 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 97F7F2060FC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:41:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DBFB201736 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:41:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.114.142] ([10.8.114.142]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 02DIf2gn028730 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:41:03 +0100
Subject: Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <C9E8B3DAE355FAD80C21236C@PSB> <1UW5qAlIZh.2Vbp3oIhq6g@pc8xp>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <683bb0d2-2d0d-041f-4d06-759c728025ec@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:41:02 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1UW5qAlIZh.2Vbp3oIhq6g@pc8xp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nNcAqUMUHB0NzI28Er-jLCsdzLI>
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: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 18:41:13 -0000


Le 13/03/2020 à 19:03, tom petch a écrit :
> ----- Original Message ----- From: John C Klensin john-ietf@jck.com 
> Sent: 13/03/2020 14:45:56 --On Friday, March 13, 2020 09:43 -0400 
> Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> 
>> The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 meeting raises the
>> issue of how that meeting affects NomCom (Nominating Committee) 
>> eligibility. This is especially important because a new NomCom
>> will be formed between now and IETF 108, giving us all a fairly
>> short time to figure out what to do.
> 
> Barry,
> 
> Forking the thread in the hope of not cluttering up your NomCom 
> eligibility discussion, but...
> 
> We seem to be making strong assumptions that we will be able to hold 
> IETF 108 as planned, with f2f meetings in Madrid in late July.  I 
> suggest that the IESG (and the rest of us) think about that and so 
> sooner rather than later.  Our implicit assumption is that things 
> will settle down enough that IETF 108 can be held normally and that 
> we do not need to worry about a "new normal".

> <tp> I fear that that assumption will turn out to be optimistic.  UK
> government advice is that the peak will come in 10 to 14 weeks and
> that the UK is four weeks behind Italy.  Assuming Spain is somewhere
> between the two then IETF108 must be at risk and it would be sound
> engineering to explore the consequences of IETF108 not happening in
> person.  One post up-thread suggested that IETF109 would not happen
> either. Again up-thread a post suggested that this virus spreads more
> in the dry so the spread in Spain may be faster or greater than in
> the wetter UK. Tom Petch </tp>

IETF108 and 109 will surf on waves.

The China data is encouragingly surfing down a 3-month wave.  They 
consistenly halved the new cases daily in recent days, to a point that 
one would expect 2 new cases only, right after tomorrow.  That's an 
encouraging situation if so it is.

An accordeon, or wave back and forth, effect might happen, or might not, 
from newly strained countries back into China, who seems to be closing 
borders to incomers, recently.  I guess if they resist then there wont 
be a 2nd wave.  Even if there is a 2nd wave, it might be lower, or not.

The 'mutation' word is not understood.

Clinical trial protocols of medication started yesterday or even 
earlier.  Despite that, vaccination is said within several months, not 
weeks.

It's an event of cold, but heat countries in Africa have it too, even 
though a little less.  It's an event of winter, because world maps of 
distribution, show currently much distribution in Northern hemisphere, 
and little in the Southern hemisphere.  When the Earth will incline the 
other way, will the virus with a crown disappear or move the other way too.

The cancellation of conferences and similar meetings that I see extend 
to end of May and end of June.  Some events simply cancel, others 
forecast a new date to replace the initial date.  Some concerts are 
moved to September.

The cancellations of airlines do have end dates, but I forgot them.

Communication still lacks at most levels.  Some call it epidemy others 
pandemy, some call it a virus or a disease, acronyms abound and used 
interchangeably; situation scales are declared and silently retired 
(e.g. in France Stade 1, Stade 2, Stade 3 never reached but we're there; 
e.g. in France yesterday the speech called it both an epidemy and a 
pandemy)  Communication: people learn from the others the good ideas, 
Italy now has singers at windows, like China a few weeks ago.

Alex

> 
> --- New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it 
> here: https://www.oeclassic.com/
> 
> The infectious disease specialists and epidemiologists among my 
> colleagues is this novel coronavirus really is new in several ways 
> and, consequently, that we really cannot predict how quickly the 
> period of maximal spread and risks will wind down by July.  That may 
> be likely, but it is by no means certain.
> 
> So, it seems to me that we should be sorting out possible issues and 
> making contingency plans about the conditions under which IETF 108 
> would need to be virtual too, including both things tied to the
> first or second meeting of the year and to how we do things.   The 
> circumstances that came upon us in the last six weeks gave us little 
> choice other than making quick decisions. I personally think that,
> on balance, the IESG made reasonable decisions and handled things
> about as well as they could be handled, including the short-notice 
> cancellation/ virtual conversion and reformed agenda.  But we'd best 
> not have that "whoops, big surprise" situation followed by a
> scramble again, if only because of the damage that the loss of the
> cross-area review that has occurred at f2f meetings since the IETF
> started could do to the quality of our work.
> 
> So, let us -- soon, even if not in the next two weeks -- ask 
> ourselves such questions as to how the Nomcom will function if it 
> cannot meet f2f at IETF 108 (or 109), whether the possible need for 
> the Nomcom to do much more of its work remotely might affect
> whatever advice is given to the ISOC President/CEO about candidates
> for Nomcom Chair, and so on.   And then let's repeat that with a
> review of all of the other issues tied to the "second meeting" and
> how IETF 108 could be made maximally effective if we were forced to
> hold it virtually... including, of course, how that decision would be
> made and by whom.
> 
> We could still view that as short-term with longer-term analysis and 
> solutions to follow.  But July isn't that far away and, if things 
> don't get better, we should not have to deal with any 
> plausibly-foreseeable situations by being surprised and improvising.
> 
> best, john
>