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 <[email protected]> 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. > >
