--On Thursday, September 11, 2025 17:35 -0400 John Levine
<johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It appears that Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>> Moving to another venue is probably not practical at this point so
>> the realistic choice is between meeting in SF and no meeting. I
>> understand that the SF meeting is likely to have a serious
>> attendance shortfall. But given the multiple prior cancellations
>> and the fact that the alternative is likely no meeting, I think we
>> just have to accept the fact attendance will be low.
>
> It is really hard to tell. While I think you're right that fewer
> people will come from outside the US, there are also non-citizens
> in the US who can travel within the US but would not want to leave
> the country because they're not sure they'd be let back in.
>
> I agree that meeting in S.F. appears still to be the least bad
> option.
FWIW, agreed. And, repeating something I think I said some months
ago during the call for community comment on this, it is quite
impossible to know what the situation will be 14 months off. An
optimist might predict scenarios that would make things much better
by then. Even a mild pessimist might predict that they would be even
worse -- in both cases for both those who would be coming from
outside the US and for those who would be constrained about leaving.
That leaves me with the same conclusion you, and apparently the LLC,
reached: on balance and despite understanding the possible drawbacks
and risks, it is best to go ahead with planning for the meeting.
And, while I'm confident the LLC already has the right contingency
planning in place and will continue to develop those plans, if,
independent of speculation now, things turn suddenly very bad in
August of September 2026 (the run-up to the elections, among other
things), they/will will need to adjust, probably by going all-remote.
But speculating on the range of scenarios that could lead to that and
changing plans based on those speculations does not seem to me to be
reasonable.. or even rational.
john
