Subject: [Manycouches] Consultation on proposals regarding planning for IETF 109

From: Piotr Strzyzewski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:57:14 +0200

Dear All,

I would like to make one comment about proposed assessment criteria for
IETF 109. Please consider lowering 1250 to something near 500 in: "Any
prohibitions on mass gatherings are only for events of more than 1250
people, which is our rough estimate for the number of expected
participants." together with organizing hybrid meeting. Taking aside the
decision of in-person IETF 109 meeting, I believe that many people will
not decide to attend on site due to many, sometimes not directly related
to the situation in Thailand reasons. Going hybrid with limited number
of people will allow for a pilot/slow start (I believe there is a better
word for that, considering the situation).

Stay safe,
Piotr

-- 
Piotr Strzyżewski

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 09:23:45 +1200

Thank you Piotr.

I understand your point - a hybrid meeting is certainly possible where the number of in-person attendees is less than normal.  Whether that is 40% as you suggest or a different figure is not clear.

One of the mandatory requirements from RFC8718 is 

	The Facility MUST provide sufficient space in an appropriate
	layout to accommodate the number of participants, leadership, and
	support staff expected to attend that meeting.

To implement the change that you suggest we would need to assume that the expected number of participants, etc is less than 500.  I don’t see how we can make that assumption without assessing expected attendance in advance and so I suspect this has to stay as it is for this stage of the assessment.  I should note that the process already includes the option of a second stage where it looks like the meeting can go ahead in-person but we need to assess how many will actually attend.

What I can offer is, if the initial assessment identified this as the only (or main) issue preventing us from holding an in-person meeting then it would be reasonable for me to recommend that we to move to the second stage where we assess expected attendance to see if this is showstopper rather than immediately switch to an in-person meeting.

Jay

> On 12/08/2020, at 2:57 AM, Piotr Strzyzewski <Piotr.Strzyzewski=[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Manycouches mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]

---

From: Piotr Strzyzewski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 09:57:08 +0200

Hi Jay,

Thanks for detailed answer. Your offer is really reasonable. Thanks for
that. I try to be optimistic about IETF 109 being in-person meeting.
Thailand is dealing very well with the situation. Nevertheless, I
believe that local regulations could be the biggest issue. Fingers
crossed.

Stay safe,
Piotr

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 09:23:45AM +1200, Jay Daley wrote:
> To implement the change that you suggest we would need to assume that the expected number of participants, etc is less than 500.  I don???t see how we can make that assumption without assessing expected attendance in advance and so I suspect this has to stay as it is for this stage of the assessment.  I should note that the process already includes the option of a second stage where it looks like the meeting can go ahead in-person but we need to assess how many will actually attend.
> 

-- 
Piotr Strzyżewski

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 12:55:11 +0200

Dear all,

Le 11/08/2020 à 16:57, Piotr Strzyzewski a écrit :
> IETF 109. Please consider lowering 1250 to something near 500

To me, it makes sense to lower it.

But even then, I would like to suggest a stronger level of common sense.

These limits make some sense in a context where we understand what is 
happening.  We expect, for example, 2 to be larger than 1, and in a 
linear scale.

But in a context where we do not understand what is happening, as is the 
case with the current sanitary situation, these limits might make little 
sense.  The exisitence of limits bring in needs of exceptions and 
derrogations.

Common sense should prevail more.

Common sense for the time being tells one should not meet, not travel, etc.

I suspect this applies well into the year 2021.

(and yes, I agree that common sense is hard to qualify and it depends on 
who senses it :-)

Alex

>   in: "Any