Re: [HT-rt] HR-RT Review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

[Mary B <[e-mail]>]

I'm glad this discussion has come up.  I have one comment below [MB].

Regards,
Mary.

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Niels,
>
> Thanks for the extensive review. Much appreciated. Many of Michael's
> comments are spot on; I'll add my replies below (and trim a bit of the
> explanatory text to save space):
>
> On 19 Apr 2018, at 11:59, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a review done within the framework of the Human Rights Review
>>> Team, is was done by Beatrice Martini and Niels ten Oever. The Human
>>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> 1)
>>> Section: 2. Venue Selection Objectives/ 2.1. Core Values
>>>
>>
>> Text from draft:
>>> "Inclusiveness: We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote
>>> participation of anyone who wants to be involved."
>>>
>>
>> We suggest an edit along these lines:
>>> "We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote participation of
>>> anyone who wants to be involved and who may contribute to the diversity
>>> of perspectives represented in the working sessions"
>>>
>>
>> I suggest you reword your suggestion to:
>>    "We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote participation of
>>    anyone who wants to be involved.  Widespread participation
>>    contributes to the diversity of perspectives represented in the
>> working sessions"
>>
>> the problem with the "and" in the sentence is that the sentence can
>> otherwise be parsed
>> to say that we only want to facilitate partition from those who
>> contribute to
>> increased diversity.
>>
>
> I have to agree with Michael's suggestion. In addition to the possible
> ambiguity, there was pretty explicit consensus in the WG that the objective
> was to facilitate people who participants that want to participate, and
> explicitly not to use venue selection for purposes of outreach. Michael's
> reformulation makes that a bit clearer. Does that satisfy your concern?
>
>
> 2)
>>> We find that the current draft is not totally consistent in regards to
>>> the affordability of participation.
>>>
>>
>> This is my intepretation.
>>
>> Initially, it acknowledges that many participants are self-funded, and
>>> that budget solutions should be available. That's great.
>>>
>>
>> From Section 2.  Venue Selection Objectives/ 2.1. Core Values:
>>> "Economics:
>>> Meeting attendees participate as individuals. While many are
>>> underwritten by employers or sponsors, many are self-funded.  In order
>>> to reduce participation costs and travel effort, we therefore seek
>>> locations that provide convenient budget alternatives for food and
>>> lodging, and which minimize travel segments from major airports to the
>>> Venue.  Within reason, budget should not be a barrier to accommodation."
>>>
>>
>> But then, in Section 3.2.2, things sounds less affordable.
>>>
>>
>> From Section 3.2.2 Basic Venue Criteria:
>>> "The cost of guest rooms, meeting space, meeting food and beverage is
>>> affordable, within the norms of business travel."
>>>
>>
>> "Business travel" has commonly a higher cost than "self-funded budget
>>> travel".
>>>
>>
>> The intention is that the *venue* (primary hotel) should not be so
>> expensive as to be prohibitively expensive to even those on "business
>> travel".  There are locations (resorts in really exotic locations) where
>> the nightly price of room is like $500/night.  The intention is to rule
>> those out.
>> As a self-funded individual, I accept that I can't often afford to stay at
>> the primary hotel, but I will find something acceptable within a few
>> blocks.  So that's how section 2 and 3.2.2 are reconciled.
>>
>
> Michael's explanation is correct, but I take your point that "guest rooms"
> in the second bullet of 3.2.2 sounds like the combination of rooms in the
> IETF Hotels, Overflow Hotels, and other nearby local accommodations.
> Perhaps we can clarify. Let's see if Eliot has any thoughts.
>
> 3)
>>> We invite to consider the addition of a few items to Section 3.2.2.
>>> Basic Venue Criteria.
>>>
>>
>> 3.1)
>>> "All Meeting Venues should have at least one gender neutral restroom
>>> with stalls on each floor."
>>>
>>
>> I'd like to support adding this as aspirational, but it's gonna be two
>> hotel renovation cycles before it can be found often enough to be a
>> reasonable criteria.
>>
>
> Given that the 3.1 criteria are those for which IASA MUST NOT enter into a
> contract if they are missing, I don't see how we can make this mandatory at
> this point, unless IASA can tell us that a sufficient number of Facilities
> meet this criterion already. Perhaps something along these lines could be
> added to 3.2.2, but even there I think we'd want input that there are such
> Facilities available, lest the criteria simply be ignored.
>
> On the topic of being family friendly,  the major thing we can do to
>> support families is to outside of the mtgvenue, and is with the nomcom
>> eligibility criteria.
>>
>
> Agreed Michael. :-)
>
> On to the rest of your comments, Niels:
>
> 3.2)
>>> "The Meeting Venue should have at least one dedicated infant feeding
>>> room and one family restroom."
>>>
>>
> I presume you mean "Facility" here and not "Meeting Venue", correct? Like
> the gender neutral restrooms, I think we probably want to hear from IASA
> that this is going to be satisfiable by a reasonable number of Facilities.
>
> 3.3)
>>> "The event should be accessible to non-smokers and those with
>>> respiratory conditions. Therefore all meeting spaces during daytime and
>>> nighttime should make it possible to fully participate in the scheduled
>>> activities without being exposed to second-hand smoke."
>>>
>>
> I have no particular concerns about adding this in section 3.3, barring
> objections.
>
[MB] I think this is a good thing as we had problems with this at the
Prague venue at one time due to the casino.  And, if we're concerned about
air quality and respiratory issues, can we please add to the last
sentence:  "..exposed to second-hand smoke and mold."   The venue in
Singapore had *a lot* of visible water damage, in particular on the
acoustic ceiling tiles that are well known to be a wonderful breeding
ground for mold.  While I might have been the only one that was literally
on the floor due to the extent of mold and the mycotoxins the molds
produce, others did experience respiratory issues and 25% of the population
has the genetic predisposition to get sick from mold exposure - the body
does not recognize and remove the toxins which then remain in the body and
contribute to chronic inflammation.  And, yes, the world is full of mold
and I spend a lot of time in the world and if a place impacts me to the
point it did in Singapore it is a *very* sick building.  [/MB]

3.4)
>>>
>>
> There is no section 3.4 in the document. Did you mean for this to go in
> 3.3?
>
> We believe that supporting parents with small children attending events
>>> is a great step forward towards inclusivity.
>>>
>>> We would like the document to address this aspect in regards to venue
>>> requirements.
>>>
>>> In particular, it would be helpful for the document to provide
>>> information about the following:
>>>
>>> * Can participants feel comfortable and welcome to have their kid(s)
>>> with them at the event? If so, are kids under a certain age not allowed
>>> to be in session rooms?
>>>
>>> * Would the venue provide a childcare space and service, like a
>>> play/activity room managed by a licensed childcare professional? See
>>> further information about childcare at events at:
>>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Childcare
>>>
>>> If the organization determines that children should not be allowed to
>>> access meetings, and/or no childcare space and service can be provided,
>>> it would anyway be important for the document to acknowledge that the
>>> organization is aware of the limitation that this would constitute and
>>> that this might hinder the participation of some attendees.
>>>
>>
> Whether children can be present in meeting rooms sounds like a policy
> issue beyond the question of venue selection, so I believe is out of scope
> for the document.
>
> As for whether having childcare services available at the Facility or
> Hotels should go in 3.3, I have no particular concerns about adding it,
> again, barring objections.
>
> 4)
>>> We invite to consider the addition of one item to Section 3.3 Other
>>> Considerations.
>>>
>>> Section 3.2.2 Basic Venue Criteria says:
>>> "The Facility is accessible or reasonable accommodations can be made to
>>> allow access by people with disabilities."
>>>
>>> This is great!
>>> At the same time, sometimes one person's required accommodation might
>>> create a barrier for someone else. For example, the same session could
>>> be attended by one participant with a guide dog, and another participant
>>> with a severe allergy to dogs.
>>>
>>> It would be ideal if the document could mention a consideration on this
>>> type of conflicting requirements that might occur. For example, it could
>>> say that, in the full respect of everyone's needs, the organizing team
>>> will aim to find the most suitable solution on a case by case basis.
>>>
>>> This statement should also include information about who / what team can
>>> be contacted to ask for information in case of need.
>>>
>>
> I think adding a short informational note to that bullet in 3.2.2 makes
> sense. I'll again leave it to Eliot to see if he can come up with something.
>
> 5)
>>> Correct typo in the title: "3.3. Other Consideraitons"
>>>
>>> Edit: "3.3. Other Considerations"
>>>
>>
> Of course.
>
> Thanks again for the great comments.
>
> pr
>
>