> Would G7 meet if 1 does not come?
Not sure that's a comparable event.
The IETF, IMO, is quite different in terms of how we operate and get work done. So although there is a challenge to be evaluated here, it's not directly comparable to either what happened with MWC or G7 meetings. Where as in both of those examples, folks who don't attend cannot participate at all, that's not the case for an IETF meeting. There are side meetings and direct interaction which one cannot do remote (so some impact noted), however, discussions and attendance can be managed with remote folks (Meetecho, Jabber, Email lists).
I am not suggesting we take any specific course of action at this point since the situation is fluid.
I am certain, following this particular event and surrounding circumstance, we can build this into ways to address such situations for future meetings.
regards,
Victor K
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:54 PM Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Le 13/02/2020 à 21:50, Richard Barnes a écrit :
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:37 PM Kathleen Moriarty
> <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Hi Carsten,
>
> There's one consideration you left out -
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:18 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx
> <mailto:cabo@tzi..org>> wrote:
>
> On 2020-02-13, at 15:55, Kathleen Moriarty
> <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >
> > That said, my travel is mostly booked and I am planning to
> attend, but will watch to see what happens with any IETF
> pandemic planning.
>
> Which is what is probably true for most of us.
>
> We already know that companies’ and countries’ policies will
> place some limitations on the meeting (which actually is having
> some limited impact on planning for the meeting). With the
> knowledge we have today (2020-02-13), we can assume that we will
> have a productive meeting, not the least because we have good
> remote attendance possibilities for those who can’t (or choose
> not to) make it.
>
> On a health/responsibility level (and, again with the knowledge
> of today), there simply is no reason to cancel the meeting. It
> is still way more likely for an IETF attendee to have a traffic
> accident than to be impacted by COVID-19.
>
>
> Individuals from an entire nation likely cannot attend what is meant
> to be a global meeting. This deserves some thought.
>
>
> I agree that this is unfortunate, but I don't see how it follows from
> this that nobody else should meet.
One could turn that question in many different ways.
Would G7 meet if 1 does not come?
There are many other ways in which to turn it.
Alex
>
> --Richard
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>
>
> Now that knowledge we have today may change (a.k.a.
> “surprises”), so the IETF leadership needs to stay in a position
> to make different decisions based on emerging situations, and
> new expert advice that may become available.
>
> I still think of the plenary where it was announced that we
> would meet in Korea and somebody went to the microphone with the
> concern that North Korea could be attacking Seoul at any time.
> Yes, COVID-19 can attack at any time, but it is just one of many
> risks that we have to juggle.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>
