Sent from my mobile device On Feb 13, 2020, at 3:50 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Carsten,
There's one consideration you left out - On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:18 PM Carsten Bormann < cabo@xxxxxxxx> wrote: On 2020-02-13, at 15:55, Kathleen Moriarty <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.
That’s not what my message said. This would be a normal consideration and addressed point in a risk management process.
Best regards, Kathleen
--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
--
|
