I agree that having a contingency plan for this would be wise and if we make it reasonably future-proof it would not be wasted effort if IETF108 takes place normally. Could we possibly discuss it over on eligibility-discuss, where presumably the people interested are already to be found? Regards Brian Carpenter On 14-Mar-20 03:45, John C Klensin wrote: > --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". > 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 > > > > > > . >
