Subject: [Manycouches] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-shmoo-01-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 05:57:36 -0800

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-shmoo-01-00: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-shmoo/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work to draft this charter in very challenging times... with
multiple inputs from the community, getting even a rough consensus is not easy
on this topic...

I like the change to "Stay Home Meet *Occasionally* Online" ;-)

Unsure whether the word "hybrid" is used rightfully in 'mostly online, or
“hybrid,” meetings'. Suggest to keep only "mostly online" (see also the use of
"mostly-in-person" later in the text).

About "manage community health"... so no more ice creams and cookies only
fruits ? ;-) Suggest to reword with "sanitary conditions". Anyway, I wonder
whether the IETF community has the capacity to author a BCP on this topic
(would it create some liability ?)

Still missing any milestone...

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 15:26:11 +0100

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-shmoo/

Liability is probably the reason as to why there are no "Local Letters 
of Invitation" https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/113/ ?

A BCP would say that there are letters of invitation and that the 
invitation offers guarantees of no spread, and together they might help 
someone get a visa to get there.

The creation of a BCP would need many other kinds of agreements between 
the participants of the creation of the document.  For that to happen, 
there would need to be trust in the WG about the way to move forward.

Alex

> _______________________________________________
> Manycouches mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 20:04:39 -0800

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...

> On Jan 17, 2022, at 6:26 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> the invitation offers guarantees of no spread,

I’m not sure what a “guarantee of no spread” would entail. To guarantee that nothing can be passed from human to human, one would have to guarantee that humans have no opportunity to interact in any way. If it’s a guarantee in any common sense, it would mean that if the virus is spread at all in any way, someone pays someone else some money or otherwise is in default.

This refrain is beginning to sound a little bogus…

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 10:51:51 +0100

Le 18/01/2022 à 05:04, Fred Baker a écrit :
> I’m not sure what a “guarantee of no spread” would entail. To 
> guarantee that nothing can be passed from human to human, one would 
> have to guarantee that humans have no opportunity to interact in any 
> way.

No, I did certainly not mean to remove all interactions!

There should be protection, but the devil is in the detail of the
protection.

> If it’s a guarantee in any common sense, it would mean that if the 
> virus is spread at all in any way, someone pays someone else some 
> money or otherwise is in default.

I see.

No, I did not mean to invent a concept of 'fine' (to fine somebody) for
covid spread.

Maybe the word 'guarantee' is not appropriate.

Maybe better would be a 'promise'.  The 'promise' protocol would be
trying reassure someone that participating to the meeting does not
spread the virus, to the best of one's effort.  A 'pledge' maybe.

> This refrain is beginning to sound a little bogus…

Sorry if I keep sounding as a broken disk: normal spiral looping back to
beginning instead of advancing.

However, let me try to clarify: a guarantee would be 'best effort',
promise.  A first experiment would try an in-person component with a
particular covid protocol.  This would involve extensive testing;  the
protocol would promote personal interactions using certain protections.
    The protocol would not prevent personal interactions, which are the
main goal of the in-person component.

If the testing at the end of the meeting shows entirely negative
results, and provided that all were tested extensively, then it can be
deduced that repeating the same protocol at the next IETF in-person
meeting would promise the same encouraging results.  That is the
promise.

Such test was never tried at IGF and should not be claimed as such,
because there was no extensive testing, but voluntary-based testing.
Testing just some from time to time is not enough.

If the first experiment of in-person component issues still a positive
test at the end (i.e. some people catched or transmitted covid), then
the protocol should be modified for the next time.

A few iterations might lead to more confidence to meet in-person.  It
would be a better 'promise'.

On another hand, a non-guarantee, or a lack of guarantee, is the entire
movement of the responsibility towards another organisation (e.g. the
Vienna authority, or the Hilton authority in this case) who are less
aware of IETF.

Hopefully I have helped clarify my text a little out of being bogus.

Alex

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 11:45:20 -0800

> On Jan 18, 2022, at 1:51 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

If there is any such, I would suggest that the LLC review the testing done by the city of Vienna. If I understand correctly, any meeting with 500 or more participants is required to have a daily PCR test for each individual; we will submit to that *daily* while there. If there are any cases that trace back to the meeting, that would be a failure, and otherwise it would have to be considered a success.

I don't know that it is repeatable as stated, as I don't know that every city has that plan of action. Repeating it without that would require that the IETF itself have everyone tested, perhaps daily, at every meeting forever. The question I would ask is: at whose cost? This begins to sound like an insurmountable requirement if the cost per testing event is significantly greater than zero. Or, perhaps all meetings in the future have to be held in Vienna.

I guess, Alexandre, what might help is a clear statement from you of what solution would be acceptable to you - what would you consider to be "good enough"? I'm approaching the conclusion that there is in fact no acceptable algorithm. If that is the case, maybe you should participate remotely.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 21:24:37 +0100

Because we are meeting in different countries, with each own different jurisdiction (besides some areas like EU that typically will share "most of the rules"), we can't and must not set any "own" rules. We are just bound to the venue rules and those can change even right in the middle of the meeting, we like it or not.

So, no, I don't think the LLC or secretariat can set any rules. If I decide to come to Vienna and the city/country cancel the daily testing, there is no way the LCC can enforce that test for any participant that don't want to accept it, as it will be just against the law (at least in most of the EU jurisdictions).

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet

**********************************************
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.

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:49:00 +0100

Le 18/01/2022 à 20:45, Fred Baker a écrit :
>> results, and provided that all were tested extensively, then it
>> can be deduced that repeating the same protocol at the next IETF 
>> in-person meeting would promise the same encouraging results. That 
>> is the promise.
> 
> If there is any such, I would suggest that the LLC review the
> testing done by the city of Vienna.

I think there is a mistake in assumption here.

I think it is not the City of Vienna who tests.

> If I understand correctly, any meeting with 500 or more participants
>  is required to have a daily PCR test for each individual; we will 
> submit to that *daily* while there. If there are any cases that trace
> back to the meeting, that would be a failure, and otherwise it would
> have to be considered a success.
> 
> I don't know that it is repeatable as stated, as I don't know that 
> every city has that plan of action.

It is strange.  I think Cities here have no plan of action about covid.
  It all comes from government.

I might be wrong about Vienna, but I doubt the City tests everybody.

It might the hotel who tests.  It might be a caritative organisaiton who
tests for free (Red Cross).

Once the mandate of obligation of testing is there in the government
ruling, there are many people who build test sites (small tents) and
offer testing services.  It is a lucrative business.  Some times it is
also outside of the law (the normal law).

> Repeating it without that would require that the IETF itself have 
> everyone tested, perhaps daily, at every meeting forever.

Yes.  Maybe not forever, but yes for a long time.

There is also another theory that this testing should stop now.  In
Spain they propose that.  In UK they almost implement that.  These are
countries where one would be easier to have an in-person meeting without
hassle in the followign weeks.

But how about afterwards?  Will that change again when the virus strikes 
again?

> The question I would ask is: at whose cost? This begins to sound like
> an insurmountable requirement if the cost per testing event is 
> significantly greater than zero.

The cost question is an importnat one.  The cost structure changes -
someone has to bear the cost but others have less costs for other things
that disappeared.  It is not unsurmountable.

The cost of testing (if paid by IETF) can be seen also as an investment:
if IETF finds a way to meet and offer promises of no spread, then that
technique can be later sold to others, to obtain a return on investment.

> Or, perhaps all meetings in the future have to be held in Vienna.

If Vienna does not change rules, then probably. It would be unreasonable
for IETF to hold all meetings to Vienna, based on past experience, but
if the question is to meet or not to meet, then a Vienna-only option
might be acceptable (if, of course, it provided best health aspect too).

> I guess, Alexandre, what might help is a clear statement from you of 
> what solution would be acceptable to you - what would you consider to
> be "good enough"?

I htink it is good enough to test at arrival and then daily test all.
If the results are negative at the end then the same protocol should be
applied next time.  If the results are positive at the end then the
protocol should be improved before the next time.

That is a theory in which it can be acceptable.  It is a mechanical
acceptation.

> I'm approaching the conclusion that there is in fact no acceptable 
> algorithm.

No.  There must be something.  There must be a way out of this.

A patiently designed protocol of meeting can be made with the least
possible risk.

> If that is the case, maybe you should participate remotely.

Sorry, no too.  That advice is perfect advice before covid.

And yes, I know, several people around me, including very close ones,
tell me that I am unreasonable to say that that advice is perfect before
covid, because it is the same advice now too.

The advice around me is the following: if some people want to do
something that concerns them exclusively then so be it.

Alex

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:15:08 +0100

Le 18/01/2022 à 20:45, Fred Baker a écrit :
>> in-person meeting would promise the same encouraging results.
>> That is the promise.
> 
> testing done by the city of Vienna. If I understand correctly, any
> meeting with 500 or more participants is required to have a daily PCR
> test for each individual;

To clarify: I think it is not the city of Vienna who requires the
testing but the government.  It is not the city who tests either, but
the hotels, or other facilities.  The source of this info is this URL
https://www.wien.info/en/travel-info/corona-information/testing-options-vienna-guests-388220

I am still looking for the source information at Austria government that
established this rule of rooms and so on.

Further, convention.at, an organisation promoting meetings in Vienna
reflects also a government decision (not its own decision) to relate to
that 500 number.  In that, one can see that not only 500 is a number 
but also 25.  In it, one can see that one can have a meeting room with 
max 25 people inside (probably large room) and without testing.  So, it
might be possible to hold a WG meeting without testing daily.
https://www.vienna.convention.at/en/event-planning/covid-19/update-meetings-362408

Further, by that URL it appears that the PCR testing requirement is at
1000, and not at 500 as initially said.  But, they say 'max 1000' and
not 'min 1000' as one would expect.  So it depends what they mean with
that 'max' term.  We have at IETF a similar terminology problem with the
'min MTU'.

Also, when IETF says they require simply 'PCR tests' then that might
look scary uncomfortable every day in the nose. But the Austrian sites
use the term 'gurgelt' PCR in Austrian which might mean 'gargle' in 
English which might mean deep in the throat via the mouth (not via the 
nose), which might mean less discomfort, but might also mean less chance 
of detection. Sorry, google translate does not have Austrian.

> we will submit to that *daily* while there. If there are any cases
> that trace back to the meeting, that would be a failure, and
> otherwise it would have to be considered a success.

I agree.

If there is  no universal mandatory testing of all at the meeting then 
it is impossible to state whether or not the meeting helped or not 
propagate the virus.

Alex

> every city has that plan of action. Repeating it without that would 
> require that the IETF itself have everyone tested, perhaps daily, at 
> every meeting forever. The question I would ask is: at whose cost? 
> This begins to sound like an insurmountable requirement if the cost 
> per testing event is significantly greater than zero. Or, perhaps
> all meetings in the future have to be held in Vienna.
> 
> what solution would be acceptable to you - what would you consider
> to be "good enough"? I'm approaching the conclusion that there is in 
> fact no acceptable algorithm. If that is the case, maybe you should 
> participate remotely.