IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 17 April 2020 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 3C2473A0926 for <ietf108planning@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 07:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=raszuk.net
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 nrZuzyrdtge2 for <ietf108planning@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 07:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52b.google.com (mail-ed1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52b]) (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 0586C3A0949 for <ietf108planning@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id i7so1558544edq.3 for <ietf108planning@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=diNg+fyIBDPKLq3tkuO4kAHEaN95rAwAhxlgQoASjbA=; b=QrM6wkn8agiVZyvSigf0zRAa3/+QExDdgAaSyIbwFhKad++hqlnVjaw6aeQ2kdgBbI dYFzddybx3UPGEYq+5msxBW69uBPrU9TqKbJzvdIGFkwRPnr3cDfpWlArc2f3Zy2ofmo XUBRqMCpaYUxWQUG6EzhlFRdQQw60ep7kmUdRit59JImEj643OTJzqr1XVtD5UDI4ceu rTOyGmfQUE0g2nx3B6mlHOd/lM2LkSMyhn4ItLAFEefbBGbl+kF+m5orqcTjjxRSrp3g lTZzof/aRRHb/DphEH5d8FPCnYzZxSeetGEBa/OrcA3KLvKKoVnJ46sYjx0KWpbO6XAJ RwUg==
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; bh=diNg+fyIBDPKLq3tkuO4kAHEaN95rAwAhxlgQoASjbA=; b=SFVRDxQhLRi1tXAylv+i3NMRlQ8lkv9MQhSCBrnINtQMuz2RuhfudU/uilPVgGaJCH O6ATGFj0BRpVsfwkV/LiXawmyQNXSokNvORtxqQOI64C2SWikoLp2+hH9mLZArrqEdb9 Z0agxkEy5Qs1g8snAckG/qT6uxD6hBMJyNfbogZMQ2LIw/HFYe4OK7MSM59gc0Xz0+yS hH0nTjyVY6ACyMT4kSHgitNW/xzCP+BG9FCjaErgpn1P6k3TNc6mE9whBqHB9qR5S5h5 wy9JeE808qVjwQdi9WQqB5ZkfsWYcC49c+U+mugK2iQOOGk+sEFQ6rADMte9WIcYjype sXog==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYGHEDSQrFvMO4hEsOXB19LIaGrDjvczk4zZR7aDu4RwkYNFhHg j7/YajW9eyUgR3z1rgXQBYtu6OmbXv7oPKTYeKNohaMgycg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLB1H+3GHeXAQ77kgS+a6pHgy0JhyNZoernTs82ACzXyeE0grrg5yWge0+SBxlxRc72SDaec9/dPP8dbCZyBYk=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:ce8e:: with SMTP id y14mr3153954edv.30.1587131975420; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158708131208.11834.5712314090867877950@ietfa.amsl.com> <7DB76076-F012-4738-B397-49303DCD81E4@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7DB76076-F012-4738-B397-49303DCD81E4@gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:59:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMF7C6mKDNURigi2XUJCctCGMFf6HFrUb6u-1CzPD_ESAw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf108planning@ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009b633505a37cf5e6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf108planning/THjOfSePQEIip-t0LwbllXL0qkM>
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: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 14:00:24 -0000

> I am not sure which is the best venue

webex ?

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 3:31 PM Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Jay
>
> Whilst I understand that the focus is on IETF108, this dreadful illness is
> likely to be with us until there is a reliable vaccine widely available. So
> even it it is under control there will likely be a reservoir of infection
> for a while and a risk that an IETF participant will fall ill with it
> during a meeting.
>
> That means that we have to consider not only what happens with IETF109 in
> terms of virtual/F2F but also, if it is F2F whether the medical resources
> in Bangkok are such that attendees would be comfortable with the quality
> and quantity of available care and treatment in that city should they be
> struck by the covid infection during the meeting.
>
> I am not sure which is the best venue from that point of view, but serious
> consideration should be given to moving the meeting to a place where a
> significant majority are happy with the medical facilities.
>
> Best regards
>
> Stewart
>
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email