| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Thank you for this Glenn. It’s interesting to see their detailed criteria. I think this would be good input to the general EC. Not sure it impacts planning directly in the ad hoc for what a mixed-mode meeting looks like, but is a model for
It is interesting that in terms of travel self-isolation (which seems to be the bigger concern) it appears to be forward-looking (i.e., not counting countries which are expected to, but have not yet, changed their travel policies). They
pass on this basis, and yet oddly, their meeting attendance is largely remote in the financial models… I think individual judgement needs to be made here, as the state of things continues to be variable, and I personally am not sure I agree with the practice.
-george From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>
On Behalf Of Glenn Parsons Colleagues, For the mixed mode meeting sub ad hocs, it may be useful input to review the IETF’s meeting cancellation considerations that are in development: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting-06.html As well as their assessment criteria on making IETF 112 (Nov 2021) an online meeting: https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_112_Madrid_go_no-go_assessment.pdf For example, they are using “80% of expected participants” as a threshold. Cheers, Glenn. -- Glenn Parsons Chair, IEEE 802.1 WG +1-514-379-9037 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1 |