John,
I agree with much you said, but with the times we are living in, we
should be expect that some planning will be wasted. That said,
I agree with your second point that future planning should possibly
be done with virtual meetings being the norm for now. To say
the least this is not optimal, but common sense says that might
be the most prudent thing to do.
Cheers,
Michael
> On Sep 4, 2021, at 1:32 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> --On Saturday, September 4, 2021 11:49 -0700 Michael Speer
> <michael.speer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Wow! Guys we are in a global pandemic! Common sense says
>> take the least amount of risk possible for everyone concerned.
>> Things are now worse globally, so why meet in person and
>> spread the disease even further?
>
> Michael,
>
> Two answers, of which the first is more important to the recent
> thread:
>
> (1) This thread (or subthread) started in response to concerns
> from Jordi (at least as I understood him) that current policies
> overemphasized the advice from the US CDC relative to agencies
> in other countries that might be giving different advice.
> Whether that other advice was more or less restrictive is
> probably not very important to the discussion. I mentioned the
> insurance policy problem only to point out that changing
> locations between countries would probably make no difference.
>
> (2) If we were seriously risk adverse, to the point of taking
> "the least amount of risk possible for everyone concerned", and
> there were consensus about being that risk adverse, then, at
> least in retrospect, all of the time and energy that has gone
> into fine-tuning when we will go back to (almost?) fully f2f
> meeting has been wasted as would be any time about meetings with
> significant numbers of people f2f and significant numbers remote
> ("hybrid"). Instead, a reasonable rule would be "no even
> partially f2f meetings until COVID-19 and all present and future
> variants are eradicated". I tend to agree with Brian about very
> long (several years if not decades) time estimates for that.
>
>> From the observation that we are still poking the tiger, I
> gather there is not community consensus about being that risk
> adverse, even if I might personally share your view.
>
> john
>
