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

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 10 May 2018 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E5C12708C for <>; Wed, 9 May 2018 19:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.609
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fBj8QnB5KaBe for <>; Wed, 9 May 2018 19:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FDC812D7F9 for <>; Wed, 9 May 2018 19:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l132-v6so468097qke.3 for <>; Wed, 09 May 2018 19:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=wYOh7W++IpC7LIbOD3BZsB2xTVwvmLHgsgDBeyw2ZMs=; b=wMTAQc/rdLrr2xPJvhE9Jjjn44sw4MxLGUmqRVFriqnusOK/Jb3dpIfyvayiwDTEOd Qyg9usjpBLpxIcl+2RKTYgz3uStYDvAEmAkrb+tKlI110yJIkxQPEeQZk2AX/bBJAZPY l80i7egbewD46u76sRcGdWLwC5aon5IQ0D0gqCpu0AXqumdKDnQrVhDGqgw+EVh6R28u lSaWvtkC5ulQXrPJUz2ZgTQHpauZDxNp6c1+d6d3X4YgBibZOPzO6iaz3P7sZSeYf9ZO 7zMwXsyrM636heFfrJYcUqXLPlyClVsOmc2opS5nONTFkdrLFxyj0gLVo1RVK/nNIpmy W90Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=wYOh7W++IpC7LIbOD3BZsB2xTVwvmLHgsgDBeyw2ZMs=; b=o7Z2j1qsCfecLyk1SWMsKLBmXxjSaZycnt/G9ln6IJA8VsWtEp1sdEWJZIeZOYQ88q vKkXI8JUcL2glqCWb1Gor5sN+q6gXrWA9EdHINjZ3+K67CodYioaRVHtU2pytQFPpg/w CSL0+dx5V/LylIwauDMnSTSFWc1hDbMT5VEOJiR1MWqVKIbpJnUVJjKWFOEzDeQlpR0K tR9yM3cVYmnxRCkNUKcHSft/gb6hCOh40Nq3tqlBAj06q8TtLSHN9XlwTo5L3+yzvE5Y Psf9E15BEA3jNkAqh7PAryQ/EBdlHJxarS2UYxaBvj07UMyvo28RgnG0AgPwoHTVfO8D Vm8Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBGIV3sJBg3JXpoqar2N8uqlRdzWbhPifq1DQw2Z4QqsNkmJEB9 WMlID5O2feVJatoSh2qvl+dlSA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrYP5gSvUjxhvl11cDLojtyswpLXSFOLfo/1xm8kn99xweUrsaL7gaRlZSzyjKZRaKMk60QBg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id x190mr39298610qkb.91.1525919246621; Wed, 09 May 2018 19:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cavall.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id m59-v6sm23152317qte.8.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 May 2018 19:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_101EC442-3A27-4440-B183-A6659405CDC5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 22:27:24 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc:, ietf <>
To: Andrew Sullivan <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
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: Thu, 10 May 2018 02:27:31 -0000

On May 9, 2018, at 10:14 PM, Andrew Sullivan <> wrote:
>   o  Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this Venue are
>      acceptable.

The problem with that is that it's so vague that it can't be counted on to trigger action.   It's precisely what we have been doing up to now.   There is nothing here that would have eliminated Singapore, because there's no list of things to check.

There's a logical fallacy that applies to your response: because we can't perfectly solve the problem, we can't do anything to improve the situation.   The second doesn't follow from the first.   Imperfect solutions are better than not even trying.   So no, I am not suggesting doing spot checks two weeks before the meeting.   I am suggesting that at the time the venue is being evaluated, we check.   If between then and now a new mold problem crops up, oh well, we tried.   This means that sometimes we will try and fail, but if we never try, then those situations where an issue could have been prevented will also turn into failures, because we made no attempt at prevention.

Now, it may be that preventing mold problems just isn't important.   Maybe there really aren't enough IETF participants who would be excluded for that to matter.   Certainly people live their whole lives in Singapore and survive the experience somehow.   Well, until they don't, but we can't lay that at the feet of mold, presumably.   But the fact is that Singapore is actually an environment that can only really be safely lived in artificially—in the early 20th century Singapore suffered malaria pandemics, and the way they stopped that was by harshly modifying the environment.   

Ole implies that if we are going to meet in tropical environments like this, we have to accept mold; it would be equally valid to say that barring strong evidence that there isn't a mold issue, we should assume that venues in tropical locations will suffer from mold issues and not meet there.   Of course, the more restrictions we apply, the fewer venues will work for us, and maybe we should just stop doing in-person meetings anyway... :/