Re: [Mtgvenue] Where we are, post #2

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Melinda,

Thanks for the attempt to bring clarity.
On 31/01/2017 10:47, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Hi, all:
> 
> This post will try to identify questions under discussion
> in which there is no agreement.
> 
> 1) Stephen raised questions about temporal aspects of the policy -
> that a venue's acceptability may change.  After some disagreement,
> he further clarified that he thinks that section 5 should contain
> a substantive statement that the IAOC would publish how they're
> diverging from the processes laid out in this document and then
> get community feedback.  Dave asked if there's some reason
> that this should be treated differently from how other documents
> change and Stephen answered that he thinks that processes will
> change more often than the document will be revised.
> 
> So, we need to bring this to closure.

I think his point has some merit. Perhaps it can be met by a
small addition in

>> 5.2.  Consultation
...
>>    d.  On a public web page, the IAOC lists all candidate cities, when
>>        community input was solicited, and if a city is to be considered
>>        as a potential meeting location.

Add to this:

 If the IAOC has decided to waive any requirements for a
 particular location, or to consider additional requirements,
 this will also be noted on the web page.

That is both transparent and future-proof.

> 2) There was disagreement about the use of the phrase "business
> travel" in section 3.2.  Brian proposed "typical business travel"
> in its place.  I don't think I've seen any comments on this, and
> it should be an easy one to close out.
> 
> 3) The food discussion is, as usual, somewhat contentious.
> Stephen has proposed that accommodating chosen dietary restrictions
> should not be mandatory.  My understanding from his messages is
> that the scope of "chosen" includes religious and ethical
> dietary restrictions.  At this point I'd be interested in hearing
> from anyone who agrees with that, as he appears to be alone on
> that one.

I disagree. Further, I suggest that we duck the question by simply
deleting the words "health-related and religion-related". It's
not our business why people have dietary restrictions.

   Brian