I think it would be good to delay decisions for as long as we
can reasonably do this. Especially given how the evolution of the
situation is so unclear.
For example, it seems that we should be able to do a lot better
in switching from in-person to virtual quickly second time around.
But i think it would be a lot harder to switch back from virtual
to in-person.
I think the biggest data point i don't know is what the
in-person cancellation cost is to the LLC based on when and
under which circumstances it happens.
I think it would also be good to create a
"pay what you think is appropriate" for remote attendants,
maybe even with a bit of public shaming by publishing this
in the attendance list.
Cheers
Toerless
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:08:47PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > For those who didn???t see yet that the light at the end of the tunnel is
> > the light of an oncoming train:
>
> > The impending postponement of the Olympics (which would have been
> > starting the same week) should lay these thoughts to a final rest.
>
> It's a major difference of scale... things could be perfectly normal in July,
> but we'd have still have had to cancel the Olympics.
> Hundreds of thousands of people involved, many of whom have to spend
> significant time together *now* to make things work.
> Teams literally can't train, can't travel to train, can't qualify, etc.
> On-site Logistical stuff which need months of lead time can't occur.
>
> But, I agree that making IETF108 virtual is probably best.
>
> What I'd like to see is that we agree
> 1) that the Madrid Time Zone will be used for all plenary stuff
>
> 2) that WGs SHOULD plan to have a series of virtual interims
>
> 3) that the set of needed week-of topics will be significant lower,
> and will all fit into the week of.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
