On 10/3/20 23:06, Jay Daley wrote:
Rich
On 11/03/2020, at 8:42 AM, Salz, Rich
<rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
The IESG and the IRTF Chair have been assessing the viability of
the in-person meeting based on the community’s ability to be
productive. Assessment of health concerns has been the job of the
LLC, on a separate track.
Could the LLC have cancelled the meeting? How separate were the
tracks? The IESG didn't consider health concerns at all?
To put it in common business terms, I think we're owed a root cause
analysis of the full decision-making process by all parties.
Let me add to Adam’s helpful note, speaking only for the LLC here.
I certainly intend to have an internal debrief to identify any
outstanding issues and lessons for next time and then share details of
that and get comment. This is important as a number of decisions were
made on the fly and we need to circle back to have those
validated/challenged. For example, our decision to follow public health
advice was made in the absence of a community decision and was
maintained despite a few community members expressing very strong
disagreement (largely in private).
FWIW, even with a "community decision", I'm not sure how "us" could be
more authoritative than "public health advice" (if anything, we're
authoritative in terms of Internet protocols, not on public health issues).
So while there might be room for disagreement, that seems to be an
educated decision.
In the end, the meeting seems to have been cancelled for the only good
and educated reason that it could be cancelled (concerns about the
ability of having a productive meeting).
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
