We definitely need to have contingency planning. I am a security guy. We contingency plan.
Even if things do return to normal tomorrow (they won't) we are now in a changed world because we have more information. Eight weeks ago almost nobody believed that a 1918 scale pandemic was likely. Today we are in the middle of one.
Since the 1970s we have been busy integrating the global supply chain. Those efforts have brought most of the world peace and prosperity. The prosperity has been unevenly shared and wars have still occurred. But the scope for war between the European powers has been limited by the fact than none of them is capable of manufacturing a full fighter jet, bomber, tank on their own. The scope for war between the US and China has been limited by the fact that the US economy depends on cheap Chinese goods and the Chinese economy depends on access to the US market.
The creation of these inter-connections is not just a fortuitous outcome of Laissez-faire economics, they have been deliberately forged through government policy.
And now all of a sudden the supply chains have snapped and we are suddenly cut adrift. And we have to work out how to make the million or so ventilators the US will be needing in a few weeks with no access to Chinese parts with an administration that shows no intention of announcing the mobilization needed to do so.
We don't yet know what the long term effects of this crisis are going to be but they are likely to be much more profound and long lasting than 9/11. We have suddenly seen the fragility of the modern economy and that is not something many of us can unsee.
Don't assume that everyone who is currently focused on IETF work is going to be available.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 3:28 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
