Reading all the pro and cons about exploring more parts of the planet with the
specific example of Egypt, i am reminded of some strong proponent of reducing
in-person meetings to two instead of three (from before corona times).
Maybe (and assuming we return to non-corona times), we could combine these goals:
We make one out of the three slots each year the "IETF venue adventure slot",
(one year americas, next year EMEA, one year asia), and figure out a way
how this slot is primarily online, but for folks who really want to get out
of the office there is an interesting location that otherwise wouldn't fit
all of our ever increasing venue requirements. To force this being primarily
online, we could for example NOT have normal meeting rooms, but everyone in the
venue would also have to use their own computer to attend and figure out a
reduced cost "digital nomad" instead of "IETF conference hotel" setup.
I know... somewhat crazy, but i can just acknowledge from the thread all the
concerns about e.g.: egypt and then think that it would still be lovely if it
was possible to go, and then only such crazy compromises comes to mind.
But maybe not too crazy for IETF minds ?
Cheers
Toerless
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 03:43:44PM +0000, Khaled Omar wrote:
> >> I saw no suggestion of using the US???s lists as the only consideration. Certainly, it might be difficult (or impossible) to find a venue that is not on any country???s travel warning list, but these are the same considerations that drove the meeting online from COVID.
>
> Nothing is impossible, we shouldn???t wait to the perfect conditions, just do what we should do and we will see if things will come as expected or not.
>
> Khaled Omar
>
> From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Joseph Touch
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 4:49 PM
> To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen=40me.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; IETF Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Egypt as the next venue.
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2020, at 5:42 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx<mailto:mnot@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> However, I'd contest the notion that a US government warning would preclude an 'overwhelming majority of participants' -- not only would that imply that Americans always followed that advice
>
> It???s not always the choice you imply - if your employer has a policy that ties travel permission to US State Department warnings (and many do at least because it ties to their insurance, which covers employees on business travel), then it???s not just ???advice??? - it means they won???t pay *and* you can???t attend on company time.
>
>
> and that Americans are an 'overwhelming majority???,
>
> Singapore was ~34% range; as a single country, that looks like 3x the next largest - not majority, but certainly significant.
>
>
> but it would also have the policy effect of giving control over IETF venue selection to the US State Department.
>
> I saw no suggestion of using the US???s lists as the only consideration. Certainly, it might be difficult (or impossible) to find a venue that is not on any country???s travel warning list, but these are the same considerations that drove the meeting online from COVID.
>
> Joe
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
