Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-14.txt
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 10 May 2018 02:21 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE614129C70; Wed, 9 May 2018 19:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id njnI7Qx69W-4; Wed, 9 May 2018 19:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A44B12708C; Wed, 9 May 2018 19:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w4A2KsXe054888 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 9 May 2018 21:20:55 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-14.txt
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, mtgvenue@ietf.org, ietf <IETF@ietf.org>
References: <152584638193.2839.7801870228413280951@ietfa.amsl.com> <c30fd21a-85ee-734c-771c-00ff65490acb@cisco.com> <CABmDk8=HKLR89dvDTuO4eguPE5LCV-YPmcbBr1WdUuFNi+NsBw@mail.gmail.com> <20180510021428.GG9500@mx4.yitter.info>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <536fd661-ea33-2eb9-19c6-87af88bc33a2@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 21:20:49 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180510021428.GG9500@mx4.yitter.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wp48oAho_qQrAn4A3du270LUFk4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 02:21:09 -0000
I agree with Andrew's rationale, and wholeheartedly second his proposal. /a On 5/9/18 9:14 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Mary's, Ted's, and Ole's discussion of particulars of environmental > contaminents (in this case, smoking and mo[u]ld) makes me again wish > to suggest the position I held before the specific change was made to > draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-14. My position at > the time was that the Important criterion > > o Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this Venue are > acceptable. > > was what we needed. It was pretty unlikely to be traded off with any > kind of regularity, since "risk" and "acceptable" were sufficiently > flexible that we'd need to call out things that were in stark contrast > to what we normally dealt with. In any case, I thought, further > specification would be a problem. Therefore, I claimed, the above > criterion was as good as anyone could reasonably expect and it seemed > that the details needed to be left to meeting planners. (I didn't > support it becoming Mandatory because the "are acceptable" language > means that there's no test, so no way to know whether the Venue > necessarily fails.) > > We are now in the situation where we have a Mandatory criterion about > smoking in various parts of the Venue, and at least one person who > claims that such a Mandatory criterion requires site-visiting staff to > do some kinds of spot checks. It's totally unclear to me what that > would mean or what we would do if, 2 or more years later when we > actually show up, the spot checks turn out to have been wrong. > > We are now also faced with the suggestion that the same staff are > supposed to do mo[u]ld tests without having the requisite training or > hazardous materials equipment. If in fact we are demanding staff do > such things, it seems to me at least plausible that staff would have a > future complaint if we did not provide them with appropriate equipment > to undertake the tests. This is, I think, an important reason why we > cannot realistically mandate such tests. > > Moreover, once we begin requiring such tests by staff, there are other > pollutants that (1) could be required to be tested and (2) are not yet > mentioned in the document, either because we haven't yet thought of > (or discovered) them or because someone who is affected wasn't > involved in all this. > > Therefore, I would like again to propose that we go back to the > previous text -- which had the nice advantage too of having had > consensus in the WG -- and drop the new Mandatory criterion in section > 3.1, relying on staff to do their level best (as they ever have done) > to address health issues that are likely to affect IETF participants > at meetings. > > None of this, please note, is in any way intended to minimise or > denigrate the health issues (or even discomforts, for all that) people > have talked about. But we need a document that establishes > principles, not rules. If one's particular concern cannot be covered > under the principles laid out, then I think it would be most important > to raise that. But this particular change seems to me to be the > addition of a specific rule where an exising principle in the document > was already adequate to the purpose. > > Best regards, > > A >
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Mary B
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Mary B
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Mary B
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Mary Barnes
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Adam Roach
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… John C Klensin
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Mary B
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… John Levine
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-ia… Eliot Lear