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

Alissa Cooper <> Fri, 11 May 2018 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A0312EBB8; Thu, 10 May 2018 17:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=HgEHwkVn; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=N+9c7vLB
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3TC2EvnNSJeR; Thu, 10 May 2018 17:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F08E12EBAF; Thu, 10 May 2018 17:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25F22268C; Thu, 10 May 2018 20:36:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 10 May 2018 20:36:36 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; bh=sapbXK3pA1uCUD/QTmJbvgMn2xjVwPHCZgS9OMwXWNo=; b=HgEHwkVn uBfcGyFuXZIWiwObcwoWN4Kg9BzLm7afeed2aJTcRjibqkK6p//+Nzv/BDXPi1Zz 0OxcPUY0vurNw6OWwy4d7RHu0WGqB2udaN0qnN1oLjja8RS98rLj8ZJLWQ6aCOHO swcsww3Cs+iE7v4FnkwLSn2hjSSGh/pKrwuJDzxtUfVNL6xUXc+KlqM3KjttjQ3n 1M0nG7YsMnRmPxFNuXYBa0+Mv3UyMiXt9m8yj5IlnxZop4v6PYgPzxP5ZVd1k6i7 Ui23B8tkbnZukucc9QV2XAsBE80BtJmH028/m42UVGQvPAdA/pgkYYAm+SfhpUN7 93P8Y7k4TvSlqw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=sapbXK3pA1uCUD/QTmJbvgMn2xjVw PHCZgS9OMwXWNo=; b=N+9c7vLBUAhy9D5uNoDR/PKmuQQMDbof5FaOK29oBPS0c rFJvFoO0loFRTa611L/AC+UGRCcFQlN732RhQXnVro3zAFDUMzTmLAGf4wtfJJSl /FWQ9kZWd2zqqIiDJmNwCpeIxM0LLBVGn3rDLvSI4bpzqjm/CLwi6e/QEGm2+4xU P3nAoxLK990pTRdNLgtGv2CMyJbLdFOVn48hJUFJYLEfCa3Y9FYmsPV7W4UvdqSZ DvAFZVj3hNDe7ihYs2y+6EmkHhViZbHz4UN1/8NKzTJW00tU33WGw7s6JGktpFuq 8/lGTw/SmZiE4D707cLTGaq4i4u7HA73T9R9/1K8Q==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:lOX0Wn6l_5dF7UQbc3TEQIG-KRsJtG5O-HXlXCbTcXq8MBpuWebUXQ>
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4E6A3E4855; Thu, 10 May 2018 20:36:36 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9C1AB2F7-A6D5-4B71-A46B-54F873A84D34"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 20:36:35 -0400
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <>, "" <>, ietf <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Mary B <>, Eliot Lear <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-14.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 00:36:39 -0000

> On May 10, 2018, at 11:03 AM, Mary B <> wrote:
> Andrew’s suggestion of removing he non-smoking bullet and adding the general one is fine with me.  My big issue was that if we were explicitly including mandatory requirements for non-smoking then the mold should be given equal consideration.  

We appear to have rough consensus in favor of this approach. Eliot, please rev the doc accordingly and we’ll use the next version as the basis for IESG evaluation.

Thanks all for your engagement on this last call.


> Thanks,
> Mary
> On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 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
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> <>
> -- 
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> <>
> <>