IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Rebooked venues selected for IETF 112, IETF 117, and IETF 120 meetings

Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> Thu, 04 June 2020 04:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jay@ietf.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 55DE63A0ED3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:40:29 -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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Dus9L_tVLRec; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macbook-pro.localdomain (unknown [158.140.230.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 01B683A0EF4; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: Rebooked venues selected for IETF 112, IETF 117, and IETF 120 meetings
From: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <979D9AC6E2C2F9D5DB383889@PSB>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:40:24 +1200
Cc: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <504A08DA-26F6-45B7-8612-63570269B0B1@ietf.org>
References: <76FFCB72A361CFEF11E51BB2@PSB> <F048C2CE-9FE8-4C95-BFE5-120FDC3F43F9@gmail.com> <979D9AC6E2C2F9D5DB383889@PSB>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uesXJGXX-wTn3O0C9uKvKsXKp0s>
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: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 04:40:36 -0000


> On 4/06/2020, at 4:30 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

> As a worst-case
> example, suppose that Thailand imposes a similar rule for
> November but hotels are open and meetings are welcome.

We now have an assessment framework [1] that was consulted on [2] and then used [3] to decide [4] on moving IETF 108 online.  That specifically includes quarantine and self-isolation as "showstoppers".

While developed specifically for IETF 108 it was designed with possible future decisions in mind.  All it needs is a short consultation to adjust it from our experience and up to date knowledge.

Jay

[1]  https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/108/assessment-framework-person-vs-online-ietf-108-meeting/
[2]  https://www.ietf.org/blog/assessment-criteria-decision-personvirtual-ietf-108/
[3]  https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_108_Madrid_go_no-go_assessment.pdf
[4]  https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf108-online/


-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
jay@ietf.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email