Hi Joel, > On Apr 19, 2020, at 4:00 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Sounds like you (several) are saying that you can not imagine any conditions under which we should hold the July IETF face-to-face. > > So ask the criteria question differently. What criteria should we as a community agree to apply to the decision as to whether to hold the November IETF meeting face-to-face? I presume that by the early May date that has been set, Madrid will fail those criteria. So we as a community will have a good basis for moving forward. Indeed, although the criteria may need to continue to evolve somewhat, it will be very useful to understand the community’s views about the assessment framework proposed for IETF 108 when it comes time to make decisions about 109, 110, and potentially other future meetings that are already scheduled and booked. > > As far as I can tell, the reason the IESG / LLC set such a short time frame for determining the criteria is precisly so that they can then get on to planning the meeting in the appropriate fashion. > Note that if they had simply said "we know the July meeting will be remote", a (presumably different) set of people would have complained about "how did you decide that?” In fact as I noted in my mail to this list on April 7 [1], we are actively planning for a virtual IETF 108 in parallel with the collection of input about the assessment framework, and we will soon circulate a survey to understand the community’s preferences about many aspects of future virtual IETF meetings. Best, Alissa [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Si153ZcOZzl83UgPfhD7zVgOkjg/ > > Yours, > Joel > > On 4/19/2020 3:32 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 11:38 AM Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> Major corporations are not going to support travel in June.. I would be very disappointed if any security provider did. >
