Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 11 March 2020 04:03 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 5CA8A3A10CF; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:03:23 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 SGqMF2v_B0XF; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1592C3A10CE; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79520805FA; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 05:03:17 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.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> <8CC7A415-6D80-4C22-ADDE-F9544A9E01B3@ietf.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <afa00843-ec6b-d825-3015-c73d7ec6151c@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:45:07 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8CC7A415-6D80-4C22-ADDE-F9544A9E01B3@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xtgSf7ehLy3JO1zPrdv98CkgITk>
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 04:03:23 -0000

On 10/3/20 23:06, Jay Daley wrote:
> Rich
> 
>> On 11/03/2020, at 8:42 AM, Salz, Rich 
>> <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org 
>> <mailto: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).

FWIW, even with a "community decision", I'm not sure how "us" could be 
more authoritative than "public health advice" (if anything, we're 
authoritative in terms of Internet protocols, not on public health issues).

So while there might be room for disagreement, that seems to be an 
educated decision.

In the end, the meeting seems to have been cancelled for the only good 
and educated reason that it could be cancelled (concerns about the 
ability of having a productive meeting).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492