On 12/3/20 05:28, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
The problem is that you're pointing to someone that, even if elected democratically, is creating troubles for the full planet, ignoring evident things like global warming ...
I don't think you want to get into that conversation. ;-) Unfortunately,
there are more straightforward ways to create trouble people in other
parts of the world. In *that* particular respect, ironically, they guy
you're referring to has been same or even much better than many of his
predecessors.
And the second problem is that asking for a decision "now" for something that will take place in almost 5 months from now, don't looks to me like smart.
That's one point of view.
The decision can also be delayed, so then we can have discussions about
refunds, etc. :-)
I still think that the decision must be only based in the decisions of the local host government, of course, unless the full world prohibits traveling there.
That's debatable, particularly when the health of people is at stake,
and many governments have been know for not being very transparent about
these issues.
Let's suppose we are already at the end of June and we need to take a decision. Let's suppose the Covid19 spread has gone lower in Spain. If US is the only country that prohibits people going to Spain, we must keep the meeting. US people decided what president they want, and this is a consequence of that.
I do agree with that, in principle.
But there's also the question of "being able to have a successful meeting".
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
