Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: Hilton Prague)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 25 March 2007 04:09 UTC
Return-path: <68attendees-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVK2r-0006T4-Ki; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:09:29 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVK2q-0006Sp-Be for 68attendees@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:09:28 -0400
Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVK2n-0008Bh-OZ for 68attendees@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:09:28 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1HVK2O-0003q5-Tr; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:09:01 -0500
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:08:58 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx>, Nemeth Krisztian <nemeth_k@soha.tmit.bme.hu>
Subject: Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: Hilton Prague)
Message-ID: <3D49D680030E899F10491CBB@[10.0.0.45]>
In-Reply-To: <8A1DF290-335E-4024-A1A2-1F6B1DB8A566@cisco.com>
References: <C22B3189.3BF72%Jonne.Soininen@nokia.com> <1174765470.31407.286.camel@localhost> <8A1DF290-335E-4024-A1A2-1F6B1DB8A566@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b
Cc: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <Jonne.Soininen@nokia.com>, 68attendees@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: 68attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for IETF 68 attendees." <68attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees>, <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/68attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:68attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees>, <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: 68attendees-bounces@ietf.org
--On Saturday, March 24, 2007 22:47 +0100 Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote: > What, specifically, is your complaint? It looks to me like > this is exactly what happened. What John is complaining about > is that there was an area that remained available to smokers. Fred, others may be making exactly that complaint. I'm not. I believe it is possible to have smoking areas, even indoor ones, from which the smoke does not escape. How far one needs to go is a judgment call and my expectation is that IASA can, and should, do site evaluations and make such judgments. Let me give an example: The Hilton rather aggressively advertises the Chezhouse restaurant as completely non-smoking. However, at least normally, there are large open doors at the entrance of that restaurant. There is a sitting area immediately outside that door. Smoke drifts in and does so in moderately large quantities -- as Randy has noted a couple of times, the stuff is not good at obeying signs and while, by some definitions, "no smoking" means no one in an adjacent chair is smoking, that is not the point (anyone else remember when a well-known airline defined the non-smoking area as the seats to the left of the aisle and the smoking area as the seats to the left or vice versa?). Now, in my experience, there are a number of methods that separate a smoking area from a non-smoking one. One of them is known as a "door". Two such devices are often even more effective. It is also possible to arrange HVAC systems so that air flows outward from the restaurant rather than inward. With such arrangements in place, if I had to hold my breath or wear a mask and goggles to traverse the portion of the lobby in front of the restaurant, I wouldn't like it and I'd probably whine a lot, but I could live with it. But, for some of us, "non-smoking restaurant" needs to be "no smoke in the restaurant" (or smoke at homeopathic (homeopathological?) levels) to be meaningful. Nemeth Krisztian <nemeth_k@soha.tmit.bme.hu> wrote: >> Even the "need to look at the people various visa regulations >> will keep out" issue is, to me, secondary to this one even >> though I consider that one very, very, important and hope we >> will never again hold two consecutive meetings that de facto >> exclude the same people. > > I don't understand that. Why excluding people because of visa > issues is better (or secondary, as you say) than excluding > people with health issues? In my understanding in both cases > someone innocent is excluded. In this case I'd count both > parties and decide according to that. Or, better, think about > is it possible to locally arrange a smoke-free zone (probably > yes) or a visa-free zone (not likely). In principle, you are, of course, correct. In practice, ending up with sets of rules in which the system is so badly overconstrained that one can't hold meetings would put us into a fairly silly state. As I mentioned in my earlier note, we normally meet in places where a significant number of IETF participants live. Prague would probably be marginal except that people argued that, for the purpose of that guideline, the "place" was "Europe". If there were no cities or facilities in Europe with acceptable breathing conditions, we would presumably have an overconstrained system because there are a _lot_ of IETF participants from Europe. But such facilities exist, so we do have alternatives, and _that_ ought to put Prague (or at least this facility) well down on the list -- below some absolute cutoff -- until and unless things change. The visa situation is unfortunate in just that regard. The world's visa rules are such that a "don't go anywhere with unreasonable visa rules that would restrict attendance" would leave us nowhere to go. So that, IMO, turns the visa situation into precisely the kind of counting, balancing the tradeoffs, and trying really hard to be sure that no one is excluded twice in a row if that is possible that your comments above suggest. Because there are alternatives, the smoking and accessibility issues should, to me, be a nearly-absolute rule. john _______________________________________________ 68ATTENDEES mailing list 68ATTENDEES@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees
- [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: Hilto… John C Klensin
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Aaron Stone
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Randall Gellens
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Fred Baker
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Nemeth Krisztian
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… John C Klensin
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… John C Klensin
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Fred Baker
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Ole Jacobsen
- RE: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Yaakov Stein
- RE: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Sasha Vainshtein
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Peter Tomsu
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Scott W Brim
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague Doug Montgomery
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Mark Williams
- Re: [***SPAM*** Score/Req: 10.4/4.5] Re: [68ATTEN… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague Avri Doria
- [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (Prague Marriot… Natale, Bob
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Robert Loomans
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Michael Richardson
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Dave Cridland
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Jeffrey Hutzelman
- Smoke at Meetings was Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning… Ray Pelletier
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Bill Fenner
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Jeffrey Hutzelman
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… John C Klensin
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Ray Pelletier
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague Tony Hansen
- RE: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Drage, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Eliot Lear
- RE: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Pekka Savola
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] IETF tools Tim Chown
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Jim Martin
- RE: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Avri Doria
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Ray Pelletier
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Janet P Gunn
- Floor plan Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague … Janet P Gunn
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Randall Gellens
- RE: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Randall Gellens
- RE: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Randall Gellens
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Randall Gellens
- Water features Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Pra… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Michael Richardson
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: H… Randall Gellens
- Re: Water features Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to… John C Klensin
- Re: Water features Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to… YAO Jiankang
- Re: Water features Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to… Nicolas Williams
- [68ATTENDEES] Moving ahead with tools.ietf.org Pekka Savola
- Re: Water features Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to… John C Klensin
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Moving ahead with tools.ietf.org Aaron Stone
- [68ATTENDEES] Maybe we should be talking on the I… Spencer at Yahoo
- RE: [68ATTENDEES] Maybe we should be talking on t… Yaakov Stein
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Moving ahead with tools.ietf.org Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Moving ahead with tools.ietf.org Sandra Murphy
- Re: Water features Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Moving ahead with tools.ietf.org Aaron Stone
- Re: Water features Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to… John C Klensin
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Moving ahead with tools.ietf.org Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: Water features Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to… Michael Richardson
- Re: Water features Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to… Keith Kyzivat
- Re: Water features Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to… Nicolas Williams
- Re: Water features Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to… Dean Willis
- RE: Water features Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to… hannu.hietalahti