John
Indeed side-effects, but, they were taken care of.
The IESG still needs a couple of hours/days to finalize the details but the meeting plenary is not cancelled, it will become virtual ;-) I.e., deployed by using our own technology
-éric
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, 10 March 2020 at 23:58
To: "iesg@xxxxxxxx" <iesg@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: As side-effect that should be clarified (was: Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled)
Hi.
While I share the appreciation of others for what must have been
a difficult decision and support it (whether I would have made
the same decision or not is irrelevant, especially because I
don't have the information the IESG clearly solicited and
obtained), my recollection is that we have a series of dates and
actions tied to the first IETF meeting of the year (see RFC 8713
for an example). The turnover dates for the IESG, IAB, etc.,
are (therefore) tied to that meeting.
If the meeting is "cancelled", rather than, e.g., being replaced
with a virtual one, the first meeting of 2020 would be the one
in Madrid at the end of July. Assuming our intention is not to
delay the changeover of assorted Nomcom-selected bodies, I hope
someone has looked at the appropriate specifications and started
working on workarounds or will do so soon.
Yes, this is a procedural nit, but it is one that could come
back to haunt us if it, and the transition, were not handled in
an orderly way.
thanks,
john
