Le 13/02/2020 à 22:10, Victor Kuarsingh a écrit :
> 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.
True, meeting face to face is of utmost importance for a few people,
such that many others can meet virtually. Without these consistent f2f
meetings there were no Internet to talk on now. Without Internet access
people could not stay still confined.
IT is really a thing to think about.
Alex
regards,
Victor K
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:54 PM Alexandre Petrescu
<alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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@xxxxxxx>
> <mailto:cabo@tzi. <mailto:cabo@tzi.>.org>> wrote:
>
> On 2020-02-13, at 15:55, Kathleen Moriarty
> <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto: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
>
