Re: [Mtgvenue] [admin-discuss] Consultation on IETF Meeting venue assessment

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 05 February 2021 07:46 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60673A1D2B; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 23:46:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 XVwDCHFH4wV0; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 23:46:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B2783A1D2A; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 23:46:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6010; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1612511201; x=1613720801; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=lAw4R3Lhfz4y43pDIZWWDdgcs5YKIIZnZz1i3d7C5cw=; b=fG9WaNXOCdlprQjzkzoCYSwFt+AM1939ph2ouWUoChkbGz3YpQy7l9ux LOPIKRk5J+UcaY2dFkrUSldqefUZX/4k9Jb/F/dDBG20vNScU5fkJ4Yh3 DJ2Yd9Ry+W2tReeyarAXyBLAsE9MvgRJvaiFQ4m43T2F1w3/oFveXRoB8 Q=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BTAABD9xxglxbLJq1iHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQGBf?= =?us-ascii?q?gQBAQsBgSKCVAEnEjGEQIkEiFcDh26MOIY1gWgEBwEBAQoDAQEvBAEBhEoCg?= =?us-ascii?q?X0mNwYOAgMBAQEDAgMBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgQUAQEBAQEBAQGGQ4VzAQEBAwEjV?= =?us-ascii?q?gULCxgVFQICVwYTgyYBgmYgsAx2gTKBO4QehHoQgTgBgVKFK4ZFQYIAgREnH?= =?us-ascii?q?IJWPoN3gQaCWjSCLASBVnIpgRRigTkMi32HUYlKnEKDBIMpgTqRAIYgAx+TN?= =?us-ascii?q?Y9tsjaDcgIEBgUCFoFsIoFZMxoIGxVlAYI+PhIZDY4tDgmOKEADMDcCBgEJA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEDCYs1YAEB?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,154,1610409600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="33173725"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 05 Feb 2021 07:46:36 +0000
Received: from [10.61.239.112] ([10.61.239.112]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 1157kZoT010522 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:46:36 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <F35E291D-4E41-4C41-B9B6-10FB059F7D09@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C6395FCF-77F4-4C0B-9163-21D1AB577FBB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 08:46:34 +0100
In-Reply-To: <F8ED2CCD-9FD2-4382-B89E-307F0945FC19@ietf.org>
Cc: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, mtgvenue@ietf.org, admin-discuss@ietf.org
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
References: <0AB6B02A-B917-4C8B-867E-F20DEF2FED2C@cisco.com> <F8ED2CCD-9FD2-4382-B89E-307F0945FC19@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.239.112, [10.61.239.112]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/UEEHKWbYWNNrhn04Hy1pDX0VcEo>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] [admin-discuss] Consultation on IETF Meeting venue assessment
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <mtgvenue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mtgvenue/>
List-Post: <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 07:46:43 -0000

Hi Jay

> On 5 Feb 2021, at 05:17, Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> [Wheel chair accessibility is] not included because it’s something we can only properly assess by discussion with a specific venue or site visit and so not appropriate for this step, which is a remote non-contact assessment.


Ok, I now understand.  And we intentionally did not want to specify timing, so long as this stuff is evaluated prior to committing.  We started down that road and realized we were micromanaging.


> ... it sounds as if you are saying that we should consider the general level of crime/safety but we should not check that two specific segments of attendees, women and LGBT people, are equally as safe as heterosexual men (or ignore that information if brought to our attention)?

I apologize.  My note could have been better formed.

The principle is this: will it impact our participants or operations?  If yes, then you should take it into account.  If no, then you should not.  It should go without saying that LGBTQ+ participants deserve the same safety and security consideration as others.

A country’s overall HR posture often entails matters that do not impact our participants. When we decide on that basis, we are making a political statement; and that is a non-objective.

Eliot