IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Fri, 17 April 2020 13:30 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 48A023A0887; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 Bg-lfWCMlf2G; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x429.google.com (mail-wr1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (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 94C733A00E2; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x429.google.com with SMTP id x18so3090398wrq.2; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1RrmwVcTxER8FzaXxb4n6IBA7YbC1QIpwT5JeXbZaBQ=; b=GZbI0y6JzsmFLdAgEdfZLTdQ6LX687Pn1Y8hnVHHMnnnqqLnezHdiAu09Zn/ONIumu ODJPEDc+ESaGKn0OSQOQGaKssJDBbOuBhMPlnqAY78EPfwvgkHmP+CQayCJviXcMA506 d06Y+mNkeafvwGoJmGegEU3mYDESY1/M+V9Eg9gelZZ3IrMBfPlUIxoJYzkAiY8Gov7T /f7tsP4UAw/s00PyAdNcCy6/2b8RfQ8gbn/aGaREHPAKEKVws8msPqQCxF8XEn44J4mg +gdxRbyrSBt4Na7VJJC6o3BhYoPSrFQD8K3zemH4iGTjAqj+Ueq6zLfgODMCnSbBcxoF 26/g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1RrmwVcTxER8FzaXxb4n6IBA7YbC1QIpwT5JeXbZaBQ=; b=XC4r3Fc8jRWBnMo9FQFwGi6A8O0W4ztV5WmcuuKHKCJOdW3ZGeLGkolOZxBz5c6DNt IylZAxtAxk623vnLYhFSN1VR+acvbdBQqvtIalhEuDO4RG1keXOYKjvOOBBEiv9RJKrF N92L7V/5pIeJRGVox3+yVhnLz4rBTJlk0emRNgf3+rHFc+vwuZw3R3kIMFJzawsQMYm0 jT8TjMPzOjxsplplLjrWJxGF0XEjW5nD+rNdE/jtGdLKczcqj4UcCOdAB74kG/6Jcfrz 3NEa1HLOnt1mvMfNIMajBYHHh/vS3BHc/7yUC2OLatpyfIEOHhmKAKod9ALmeDjii74x Gllg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pubm4H+x72L2OEFMqpM8MzLsonqBiiIHGRScAaGxjSLiy3YgRYxi 7baUBw2IqW4bwYZXvksTWGd0yoc0
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIvR0tTZQ0oDeEsV2lRc9qQptJManWSe+p9BPUxoEOkl2Fe3G3Bm8rJ4or5QvmUECZK/nWDEw==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:dd84:: with SMTP id x4mr4319477wrl.210.1587130245742; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from broadband.bt.com ([2a00:23a8:4140:0:60d7:8e14:5e6f:c078]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s17sm7894282wmc.48.2020.04.17.06.30.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <158708131208.11834.5712314090867877950@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 14:30:43 +0100
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7DB76076-F012-4738-B397-49303DCD81E4@gmail.com>
References: <158708131208.11834.5712314090867877950@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: ietf108planning@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf108planning/uUArVSfcmE2SHVIRAeXPNb1_wlk>
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 13:30:49 -0000

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