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

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

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.

>> 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