Re: [Manycouches] Follow up on consultation on planning for IETF 111

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Le 06/04/2021 à 23:43, Jay Daley a écrit :
> The consultation on proposals regarding planning for IETF 111
> finished on 2 April.  Several points were raised and are paraphrased
> and addressed as follows:
> 
> a.  Consider what other events are taking place *globally* not
> locally This feedback is rejected as inappropriate given the highly
> local nature of restrictions, such as travel bans, face mask
> regulations and so on.
> 
> b.  Make the criteria more specific because people might interpret
> them differently This hasn’t been a problem so far and no evidence is
> provided that it will, besides which the assessment document is not a
> consensus opinion.
> 
> c.  Include X in this criteria In every case where this was raised,
> the language is general enough to include X and intended to include X
> and it would be unwieldy to enumerate every aspect of the criteria at
> the same level as X.
> 
> d.  Consider hybrid meetings This work has now started, but
> potentially targeting IETF 112 not IETF 111 given the work required
> 
> e.  Delay the decision to the 10 weeks before the meeting not 14
> weeks After speaking to the OP they have withdrawn this suggestion on
> the basis that is looks unlikely anything substantial will change in
> the intervening four weeks.
> 
> 
> On this basis I intend to stick with the proposed timetable and
> process:
> 
> 1. Assessment Criteria We will use the same criteria [1] for
> assessing whether to go ahead with an in-person IETF 111 meeting or
> switch to an online meeting as used for IETF 109.  These criteria
> were previously consulted on, amended as a result of the
> consultation, and worked well when used for IETF 109 [2].
> 
> 2. Fee structure We will use the same fee structure as used for IETF
> 110 [3] including unlimited fee waivers.
> 
> 3. Decision timetable We will use the following assessment
> timetable:
> 
> 05 Mar 2021	This consultation opens.
> 
> 02 Apr 2021	Consultation closes.
> 
> 09 Apr 2021	Response to consultation communicated and assessment
> begins using the final criteria.
> 
> 16 Apr 2021	Decision made and communicated.
> 
> 03 May 2021	Registration opens.
> 
> 26 Jul 2021	IETF 111 begins.
> 
> 
> Please let me know if you think I have missed anything or if you
> otherwise disagree.

I agree with the Assessment Criteria, Fee structure and happy to see the
decision timetable.  I think it is followed and I feel reassured a plan
is followed.

My comment is late on-purpose such that to not deviate the discussion.

But I would like to say something here.

There are hybrid meeting considerations - ok.  The vaccination and
sanitary seem to advance on a positive path towards returning to a more
'normal' - ok.

However, I do not think it is that simple.

When I was still subscribed to the IETF list there was a sort of a
charter proposal about a possibility of a somehow different worldview,
that would witness many fundamental changes.  I think I will need to
look at that again.

Because some times, and recently more often, I think that - other than
the hybrid meetings topic - the very core of the reason of why meeting
is being shaken.

That comment has many ramifications.  Is it worth polluting the air for
something that could be decided online?  Is one disturbing the world
less or more if one is using a PC or otherwise a plane seat to meet? 
Can trust be maintained and further built, if remote?  How many people 
can actually constitute a 'core' that needs to meet about the Internet 
during even the most difficult times?  And, above all, is the Internet 
itself a good thing or a less good thing in this picture?

When pondering our ways forward these are almost mandatory
considerations, IMHO.  Some might call it Ethics and leave
it to others to address.  It is a possibility.

Alex

> 
> Jay
> 
> [1]
> https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/109/assessment-framework-person-vs-online-ietf-109-meeting/
>
> 
[2] 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/7GHV8JuZuNgYjv-Dt9wrk_CN5BE/
> [3]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/ZU6cYhBTdxD63Ki2c4hUSsVfkCw/
>