On 10/1/2024 8:04 AM, Jay Daley wrote:
Fair.Hi MikeOn 30 Sep 2024, at 21:59, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I had to go back and revisit the survey criteria, and I admit to being surprised that "Reconsider Travel" against the US Travel Advisory System was "Acceptable".The background here is that BCP 226 leaves a lot to the discretion of the LLC. As I've explained in previous messages, last year we went back to the community to test if any of this needed tightening up and got a clear answer ’no' this is intentionally left to the LLC.
Until recently, we used a tight set of criteria that tried to use independent analysis to assess various aspects of the suitability of a country, with the US State Dept travel advisory level being one of those (others included assessment of the safety of the LGBT community, freedom to practice religion, etc). We regularly received feedback that this was too narrow and that the lived experience of IETF participants who have been to these places, differed from those independent analyses. Consequently we changed the assessment criteria to move away from these independent analyses to lived experience as expressed in community feedback.
That may have been a mistake. We've hopefully got a way to compare and contrast the two approaches that is data driven?
For this particular criterion, we used to state that "Reconsider travel" was unacceptable but, due to COVID, this level was applied to multiple countries and so in practice we ignored it for some time. For example, when booking Brisbane. As part of the recent review we formally changed this so that only "Do not travel" is unacceptable.
Ah - that's what I missed. Can you point me at the discussion on this? If not, no worries. The requirements are what they are for now.
So while I'm happy the paperwork reflects the site (currently) meets our minimums (de jure), I'm concerned that the reality (de facto) of the situation is below our minimums. Either that or our minimums could be incorrectly calibrated.The IETF is a global organisation and that means some very, very different views on what is normal, acceptable, etc and navigating this is always going to leave some people thinking the wrong decisions have been made. BCP 226 is quite clear - there are some clear lines that must not be crossed and then a vast sea of complexity that the LLC needs to navigate with some principles to guide it, including "spreading the pain" (RFC 8178 section 2.1) in a proportionate/sensible way. I see this discomfort over what is an acceptable minimum as part of that pain.
Yup - and I understand (and agree with) a lot of what you're not
saying as well with respect to our obligations to the world and to
our sponsors.
ps - do our contracts give us the right to cancel without cost if say for example the US State Dept advisory changes to "do not travel"? We're more than a year out and things could get worse (or better?).Generally not and so we insure against such risks, as far as we are able to. The LLC board will determine if our insurance provision is sufficient before the final contract is signed. Jay
Good enough - thanks!
Mike
