Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-14.txt

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

I don't know if the document should be explicit about this, but certainly
if it is not common practice to spot check the venue hotel, that's a recipe
for bad outcomes.

On Wed, May 9, 2018, 16:37 Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 04:20:46PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> >
> > I think moulds are fine, but we want to avoid mold.
>
> Sorry, we use different spelling dictionaries.
>
> > was in Hiroshima, asking "are the rooms nonsmoking" didn't work either.
>  In
> > both cases, the site evaluation process requires that someone actually
> go look
> > at a bunch of rooms in the venue hotel and check to see that there isn't
> a
> > problem, without first telling the hotel staff specifically what we are
> looking
> > for, so that they don't know which rooms to steer us toward.
>
> That is not how I interpret the language in the draft that has been
> produced, so if it's what you're expecting I think it needs to be
> clear.  I think your restated requirement is that the staff performing
> the site vetting not only has checked for the relevant prohibitions
> and designations, but also that the prohibitions and designations are
> in fact enforced.  We do not have that language right now, in my
> reading.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>