None of the conversation was about COVID protocols. Lowered in person attendance because of *individual concerns about health risks* was mentioned. The conversation then went sideways into public health policy and definitions, which absolutely doesn't belong on the list. On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 7:06 PM Paul Ebersman <list-nanog2@dragon.net> wrote:
mhammett> This seems more ideological and not overly appropriate for mhammett> NANOG.
No, covid protocols are something that every conference that is serious about inclusion should be *very* concerned with.
Saying that NANOG doesn't care about this says that NANOG can't be bothered to make an effort to make the conference safe for more folks.
There's a reason I'm not there in person, even though I've attended for years, spoken there, and volunteered for multiple rounds on committees.