RE: Assessment criteria for decision on in-person/virtual IETF 108

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2020-04-19, at 16:38, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

> Major corporations are not going to support travel in June..  We won't have a vaccine and bringing

> that many people together is sure to lead to an outbreak.  After seeing what happened locally (Boston,

> MA) at the Biogen meeting with about 100/175 attendees getting sick, I would not consider attending

> a meeting in July in person.  This also makes a decision for AMS and that isn't fair (IMO).  I hope they are

> factored into this process as many of our corporations have done for us (preventing travel and valuing

> our health).  

> 

> It would be nice to move on and figure out how to best run virtual meetings and improve upon

> learnings as opposed to having this discussions.  Let's spend our time well.

 

That seems like a reasonable take on the current situation, especially when you also factor in possible government-imposed travel restrictions, potential challenges with travel and health insurance etc.  At this stage, a face-to-face event in Madrid in late July seems pretty implausible, with Bangkok in November also looking ambitious if an additional  requirement is the existence of a proven and widely available vaccine. 

 

Focusing instead on arrangements for a more fully featured online event seems like a better use of time and resources, especially if there is a need to consider alternate tools for access as has been raised on a separate thread. 

 

 

Andrew


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux