Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [LSFMMBPF TOPIC] LSFMMBPF 2020 COVID-19 status update
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     lsf-pc <lsf-pc@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org
References: <b506a373-c127-b92e-9824-16e8267fc910@toxicpanda.com>
 <20200306155611.GA167883@mit.edu> <20200307185420.GG2236@42.do-not-panic.com>
From:   Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Message-ID: <2b4ad1db-dd2a-a42e-eb70-fa9a2dd21af7@toxicpanda.com>
Date:   Sat, 7 Mar 2020 14:00:25 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200307185420.GG2236@42.do-not-panic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 3/7/20 1:54 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 10:56:11AM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>> Should we have LSF/MM/BPF in 2020 and COVID-19?
> 
> I'll try to take a proactive approach by doing my own digging, where
> is what I have found, and few other proactive thoughts which might help:
> 
> The latest update posted on the LSFMM page from March 2 states things
> are moving along as planned. After that on March 4th officials from the
> county made a trip to Coachella Valley (22 minutes away from the LSFFMM
> venue hotel) "to quell public fears about the spread of the novel
> coronavirus", and announced that "there are no plans to cancel any of
> the upcoming large events like Coachella, Stagecoach and the BNP" [0].
> 
> So, hippies are still getting together.
> 
> How about our brethren?
> 
> If we have to learn from efforts required to continue on with the in
> light of the risks, we can look at what SCALE 18 is doing, taking place
> right now in Pasadena [1], their page lists a list of proactive measures
> required on their part to help alleviate fears and just good best
> practices at this point in time.
> 
> The landscape seems positive, if we want, to move forward in Palm Springs then.
> 
> When are attendees supposed to get notifications if they are invited?
> 
> Since the nature of the conference however is unique in that it is
> world-wide and invite-only it makes me wonder if the value is reduced
> because of this and if we should cancel.
> 
> Does the latency involved on the confirmation of attending decrease
> the value due to the current haphazard situation with COVID-19?
> 
> I am involved in other conferences and am seeing personal driven
> cancelations for general concerns. For folks in the US it would be
> easier / less risky to travel, so my concerns would be less than others.
> But -- would we have higher personal cancelations from EU folks? What
> are folks thoughts on this right now? Is anyone in the EU not coming
> at all due to concerns who wouldn't mind voicing their concerns even
> if LSFMM continues?
> 
> And then there is the other question: can we cancel? Or is that
> economically just  too late at this point?

We on the PC are working very closely with the Linux Foundation to make sure we 
have many different options to choose from.  As you can see on the event website 
we already have policies in place to protect ourselves if we do decide to have 
the conference as planned.

If we decide to make changes then everybody who has been invited will be 
informed as soon as possible.  As it stands we are going ahead as planned, but 
preparing for alternatives if that becomes unfeasible.  Thanks,

Josef