Jay, Understood and appreciated. I was just trying to show that things were not as simple as Fred's "predicate our actions on a vaccine" comment seemed to imply. Put differently, if we cancel a f2f meeting (or decline to schedule it it the first place because of something we can know far enough in advance) because of the criteria in that (or a successor) assessment framework then it is not a decision we make because "no vaccine is available" (even if the absence of a vaccine led to governmental decisions that ultimately interacted with the assessment criteria. I do hope that, given that those criteria were developed very specifically for IETF 108 (I just skimmed through the references you gave, all of which I've read in the past and didn't detect any hint of generalization to other meetings) that the "short consultation" you mention will occur early and without any assumption that these specific criteria will be automatically extended plus or minor fine tuning. best, john --On Thursday, June 4, 2020 16:40 +1200 Jay Daley <jay@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> On 4/06/2020, at 4:30 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> >> wrote: > >> As a worst-case >> example, suppose that Thailand imposes a similar rule for >> November but hotels are open and meetings are welcome. > > We now have an assessment framework [1] that was consulted on > [2] and then used [3] to decide [4] on moving IETF 108 online. > That specifically includes quarantine and self-isolation as > "showstoppers". > > While developed specifically for IETF 108 it was designed with > possible future decisions in mind. All it needs is a short > consultation to adjust it from our experience and up to date > knowledge. > > Jay > > [1] > https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/108/assessment-framework-per > son-vs-online-ietf-108-meeting/ [2] > https://www.ietf.org/blog/assessment-criteria-decision-personv > irtual-ietf-108/ [3] > https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_108_Madrid_go_no-go_ > assessment.pdf [4] https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf108-online/
