Re: [Ietf108planning] Assessment criteria for decision on in-person/virtual IETF 108

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Mon, 11 May 2020 06:15 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf108planning@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf108planning@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75F953A080C; Sun, 10 May 2020 23:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 ZDMVflYNby8j; Sun, 10 May 2020 23:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com (mail-wr1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]) (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 986153A080B; Sun, 10 May 2020 23:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id y3so9326492wrt.1; Sun, 10 May 2020 23:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=69mN3dqwjSStMhXXFux1Le8NC0hAsFdK7kwe2W3tYmc=; b=Xsy3vJ1QM+Qxf9zncIpuVJF7nYl14L3BN+tiEIDTeDfHztfixEqpRityHOTX1c8uqT 1/OVNhW6QBEpRnuySz15g6phD2L5jUoWkrLqYxsQX/InKXrVWAEyBk6aA86CDYtSaj1l aksq7bRYBj/AgDzxYSIyp9Af9pFc0GGkoOhAWlPYHabQMgFsoyNANXEnXNRSJ+vYsjoB 0mMNbTQRf7zLtCrbvfwxtPP92uwyIv12Y1US8/7c6f8nX6yOSDEXfu9QLYSlfx3uisOP Hyz2MXeMbYQU/M91m765BBUZ+o2+2i6Jmf4OcDkUCjXJWUF/kVun+aPcurl1gGKVm5aD xa6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject :from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=69mN3dqwjSStMhXXFux1Le8NC0hAsFdK7kwe2W3tYmc=; b=BODfrLu4RYHVYVlyrzMkOjM/GWBZk8F0JWo3zKqRIwzRQcIgSAvPgRCG/lMJWr18po 882b1jzXe4qS8RjyejDDCXMtbj+Srq7em3vKP8dkpjYH1q5SUA52aBDnsv8aXQNovlqm sfTHKqRyn8NUi4srpHAMRRxbPtZkNOk5GhPft45/qZC4SqDLs6/wLdU8uMuYlXB9mRMZ /cnSb219B0RPd3OlkuS4nY3ofpjrECtqzwADPIIAigcmI9lCHh6I++9wj8NsWflU57NH pzx+T6+are5N9RYo/MH7o3jbbBJ/xIyORZsTEiQNvwNl8i9ujjsxUW6C83WvMEEll2f0 CWfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYXZB6zfDnd/NZe5zWrRJtAaMQ9b9uQf8ghgLwRiyeyMF9JebuH J4NqEmBkdTGP1H8Hojw4JyI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLGXHUGbVdr3+GDo+mtc6wYmImKy6iXCKACqo+2qcN874JIZhjCsRkTD461GbJ4f4qfAOVQNw==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f102:: with SMTP id r2mr16167310wro.376.1589177725755; Sun, 10 May 2020 23:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.27] ([62.3.64.16]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l5sm24490875wmi.22.2020.05.10.23.15.24 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 10 May 2020 23:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-59D7A022-3394-47F3-964D-7CD0DDBE0790"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwgHUPDNtOhPhJNNHirRBOu0u1qh2shF_siXeFygjEkXqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 07:15:24 +0100
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, ietf108planning@ietf.org
Message-Id: <3C2ACDAB-DC08-46EC-8483-F84CF6E8A824@gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwgHUPDNtOhPhJNNHirRBOu0u1qh2shF_siXeFygjEkXqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17E262)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf108planning/IbLo50eaKMDbsHUnb0Tt9BLzh-s>
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Assessment criteria for decision on in-person/virtual IETF 108
X-BeenThere: ietf108planning@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf108planning.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf108planning>, <mailto:ietf108planning-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf108planning/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf108planning@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf108planning-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf108planning>, <mailto:ietf108planning-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 06:15:32 -0000

> 
> 
> What we might well end up having to consider is 'where can we meet?'. I see zero possibility of meeting in Madrid and almost no possibility of Bangkok. We may be lucky if we can meet in 2021.

That is my assessment also.

As well as the objective criteria put forward there is the additional criteria that a critical mass of participants are likely to attend. Besides the first order set of criteria set out, there is the question or whether participants (strongly influenced by their families) are willing to travel, and whether their employer is willing to let them travel. So when the objective criteria are met, there needs to be a second stage assessment of how likely it is that we see sufficient attendees with the right skills to make the meeting viable.

Meanwhile I think we need to be working on the assumption that we will not meet FWF for the foreseeable future. That means constructing a viable alternative to F2F and a means to reestablish the organisation’s momentum which seems to be sliding without the heartbeat of the meeting series.

- Stewart