[68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: Hilton Prague)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 24 March 2007 14:46 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 1HV7Vq-00025b-LM; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:46:34 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HV7Vo-00025Q-OI for 68attendees@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:46:32 -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 1HV7Vn-0006cF-9k for 68attendees@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:46:32 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1HV7Vm-000NAS-H7 for 68attendees@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:46:30 -0500
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:46:29 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: 68attendees@ietf.org
Message-ID: <E494099B5ACEC25B26C1BD5C@[10.5.0.28]>
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: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da
Subject: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: Hilton Prague)
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
For those expressing a desire to return --soon and often-- to Prague and his hotel, one thought... I like the hotel and the staff and the facilities. I mostly like the city. Under the right circumstances, I'd be delighted to come back. I am also sympathetic to, and agree with, those who say "if you decide to come into a particular culture, you accept the norms of that culture and work with them". However,.. I think there are issues about health and accessibility that supercede _any_ other considerations of meeting site choices. In order to have effective IETF meetings that are open to all participants and contributors in the IETF, we must put health-related criteria above all others. If a country or city or hotel does not, or cannot, provide an environment in which people can attend a meeting for a week without the certainty of serious and immediate health damage from the atmosphere (indoor or outdoor), I will defend their right to make that decision, but the IETF should not even consider meeting there. If a facility and city are not largely wheelchair-accessible, the IETF should not even consider meeting there. And so on (although I don't think the list is very long). There may be tradeoffs if a facility can provide a truly effective smoke-free environment or adequate mobility accommodations -- telling an IETF participant that he or she may not be able to comfortably leave the meeting hotel for a week is unattractive, but may not be a showstopper if there are adequate facilities within the meeting hotel. But telling people that the cannot attend and participate and remain healthy is, from my perspective, just not acceptable if we have any other possible choice. In the case of Prague, we heard the argument many times in the week before the meeting that this choice of city was reasonable because there are lots of participants in Europe and, to a European, one city is as good as another. Ok. But, if one believes that, then there is no excuse for going to a city that hasn't accepted growing norms, even in Europe, about indoor air quality (or, for that matter, accessibility standards or anything else that belongs on this short list of absolute priorities. 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 am luckier than Randy because my body's potentially serious reactions to small amounts of tobacco smoke can be kept within reasonable levels by a combination of caution and drugs. But I don't like some of the drugs and, more important, they significantly reduce my ability to function (as some people may have noticed this week). To either of us, this type of environment is a fairly clear "don't come and participate remotely if at all" message. I do not believe IETF should be delivering that message, especially to active contributors. 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