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

> On 8/04/2021, at 6:22 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> Jay,
> 
> This looks entirely reasonable.   Two small comments below (with
> most of the rest of your note elided to save space)...
> 
> --On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 09:43 +1200 Jay Daley
> <jay@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
>> The consultation on proposals regarding planning for IETF 111
>> finished on 2 April.  Several points were raised and are
>> paraphrased and addressed as follows:
>> ... 
>> d.  Consider hybrid meetings
>> This work has now started, but potentially targeting IETF 112
>> not IETF 111 given the work required
> 
> Just to clarify, this means that, for IETF 111, the meeting will
> either be all-remote or. while remote participation will be
> allowed and encouraged (as it has been for decades), the
> expectation is that most participation will be f2f.  Is that
> correct?

In order to consider a 'hybrid' meeting we will need to change the assessment criteria to increase the threshold for those that can be generalised as "If 20% or more cannot attend for X reason then we cannot meet".  I don’t know yet what the replacement for 20% will be, nor what the community would find acceptable for X.  For example, as it currently stands nobody from the EU can travel to the US easily taking us over the 20% threshold.  If we say increased the 20% to 50% then would people find it acceptable to hold a hybrid meeting under such circumstances?

Jay

> 
>> ...
>> 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].
> 
> A reasonable person could quibble about how well they worked for
> IETF 109 and, IIR, some did.  But I don't think there would be
> much or any disagreement had you said "worked well enough" or
> equivalent.
> 
>> ...
>> Please let me know if you think I have missed anything or if
>> you otherwise disagree.
> 
> Given, as two examples, recent events and uncertainty about
> vaccine safety and availability in Europe and predictions of a
> fourth surge in the US, I think the outcome of the evaluation is
> quite predictable.  That should not, of course, discourage you
> from continuing the process as outlined.
> 
>   john
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Manycouches mailing list
> Manycouches@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
jay@ietf.org