I was about to say the same ... we should take our own decisions, based on when it is sufficiently healthy and possible for a certain % of regular participants, not be based on when other start re-meeting, otherwise the risk is that everybody is waiting for others.
El 18/4/20 19:06, "ietf en nombre de Keith Moore" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx en nombre de moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
> On Apr 18, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Apr 17, 2020, at 18:23, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> As for well-defined criteria for deciding when it's safe to meet again, I suggest (as a strawman proposal):
>
> It doesn’t matter what you propose. No one at IETF should make up the rules on when it safe to meet again. We are not health care or pandemic experts.
That’s fine, and I certainly agree in a sense. But who is really in a position to say when both meetings and international travel from all over the world, are safe? And for that matter who is both globally knowledgeable and trustworthy enough to rely on?
Keith
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
