Le 13/03/2020 à 19:03, tom petch a écrit :
----- Original Message ----- From: John C Klensin john-ietf@xxxxxxx
Sent: 13/03/2020 14:45:56 --On Friday, March 13, 2020 09:43 -0400
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 meeting raises the
issue of how that meeting affects NomCom (Nominating Committee)
eligibility. This is especially important because a new NomCom
will be formed between now and IETF 108, giving us all a fairly
short time to figure out what to do.
Barry,
Forking the thread in the hope of not cluttering up your NomCom
eligibility discussion, but...
We seem to be making strong assumptions that we will be able to hold
IETF 108 as planned, with f2f meetings in Madrid in late July. I
suggest that the IESG (and the rest of us) think about that and so
sooner rather than later. Our implicit assumption is that things
will settle down enough that IETF 108 can be held normally and that
we do not need to worry about a "new normal".
<tp> I fear that that assumption will turn out to be optimistic. UK
government advice is that the peak will come in 10 to 14 weeks and
that the UK is four weeks behind Italy. Assuming Spain is somewhere
between the two then IETF108 must be at risk and it would be sound
engineering to explore the consequences of IETF108 not happening in
person. One post up-thread suggested that IETF109 would not happen
either. Again up-thread a post suggested that this virus spreads more
in the dry so the spread in Spain may be faster or greater than in
the wetter UK. Tom Petch </tp>
IETF108 and 109 will surf on waves.
The China data is encouragingly surfing down a 3-month wave. They
consistenly halved the new cases daily in recent days, to a point that
one would expect 2 new cases only, right after tomorrow. That's an
encouraging situation if so it is.
An accordeon, or wave back and forth, effect might happen, or might not,
from newly strained countries back into China, who seems to be closing
borders to incomers, recently. I guess if they resist then there wont
be a 2nd wave. Even if there is a 2nd wave, it might be lower, or not.
The 'mutation' word is not understood.
Clinical trial protocols of medication started yesterday or even
earlier. Despite that, vaccination is said within several months, not
weeks.
It's an event of cold, but heat countries in Africa have it too, even
though a little less. It's an event of winter, because world maps of
distribution, show currently much distribution in Northern hemisphere,
and little in the Southern hemisphere. When the Earth will incline the
other way, will the virus with a crown disappear or move the other way too.
The cancellation of conferences and similar meetings that I see extend
to end of May and end of June. Some events simply cancel, others
forecast a new date to replace the initial date. Some concerts are
moved to September.
The cancellations of airlines do have end dates, but I forgot them.
Communication still lacks at most levels. Some call it epidemy others
pandemy, some call it a virus or a disease, acronyms abound and used
interchangeably; situation scales are declared and silently retired
(e.g. in France Stade 1, Stade 2, Stade 3 never reached but we're there;
e.g. in France yesterday the speech called it both an epidemy and a
pandemy) Communication: people learn from the others the good ideas,
Italy now has singers at windows, like China a few weeks ago.
Alex
--- New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it
here: https://www.oeclassic.com/
The infectious disease specialists and epidemiologists among my
colleagues is this novel coronavirus really is new in several ways
and, consequently, that we really cannot predict how quickly the
period of maximal spread and risks will wind down by July. That may
be likely, but it is by no means certain.
So, it seems to me that we should be sorting out possible issues and
making contingency plans about the conditions under which IETF 108
would need to be virtual too, including both things tied to the
first or second meeting of the year and to how we do things. The
circumstances that came upon us in the last six weeks gave us little
choice other than making quick decisions. I personally think that,
on balance, the IESG made reasonable decisions and handled things
about as well as they could be handled, including the short-notice
cancellation/ virtual conversion and reformed agenda. But we'd best
not have that "whoops, big surprise" situation followed by a
scramble again, if only because of the damage that the loss of the
cross-area review that has occurred at f2f meetings since the IETF
started could do to the quality of our work.
So, let us -- soon, even if not in the next two weeks -- ask
ourselves such questions as to how the Nomcom will function if it
cannot meet f2f at IETF 108 (or 109), whether the possible need for
the Nomcom to do much more of its work remotely might affect
whatever advice is given to the ISOC President/CEO about candidates
for Nomcom Chair, and so on. And then let's repeat that with a
review of all of the other issues tied to the "second meeting" and
how IETF 108 could be made maximally effective if we were forced to
hold it virtually... including, of course, how that decision would be
made and by whom.
We could still view that as short-term with longer-term analysis and
solutions to follow. But July isn't that far away and, if things
don't get better, we should not have to deal with any
plausibly-foreseeable situations by being surprised and improvising.
best, john
