> On 11 Mar 2020, at 5:38 am, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 10/03/2020 19:28, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> +1. This can't have been an easy decision, but I think it's the right one. > > Agreed. I can also understand why the decision took until > now. Different people's risk perceptions differ so I'm > sure others will quite reasonably disagree with me on > this, but with all the behind-the-scenes stuff that had > to be considered, in addition to the ongoing (and many > v. recent) changes people's travel plans, I do totally > get why it took 'till today to make the call. > A further +1 from me. The IETF is supported by the discretionary input of the participants and their sponsor organisations. The IETF are at mercy of the "risk posture" of those sponsor organisations in the first instance as they control the travel and attendance of their staff. Being a "follower" in this instance is not a nice feeling, but its the way it is (I will moot) forevermore(*) (*) I honestly doubt IETF will every be the primary sponsor of all active participants. Cheers Terry
