Re: [Mtgvenue] Review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 31 January 2017 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.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 7DC081293EC for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 03:04:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 g68v-aLCRUDL for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 03:04:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb0-x229.google.com (mail-yb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::229]) (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 3B5ED129428 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 03:04:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb0-x229.google.com with SMTP id j82so117598877ybg.1 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 03:04:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jeujdYAcVnbhFUY0Pdy6x3E01qlm+iGtPbe8N+Tr3lg=; b=ewsPmtEwutdZe2t2OSqQj+WkUOAmhvdCZA2JrhtlJQeshzyDWWOF5KBjwWyymJcsjW dEUxE5LpYf5YyBDN7+9LORTJmY896Naj5VF5s6Oz69NoGarUmmiWq+word8H9OPifSwD QTr95bzR9oKgSmonu3u8/0DHnviT+0+FOrZ7OclITaamWYHA7NxVvUz1oydMHz0BnHS9 IimmsSs2LQTmqzcrLtFeqcWrdWUZCf6q0iERJk6wvJ+as8nEJmceEBXGtEziLQOv/YBC R7lmfqaACDfQXZwaw3hykgzucSXATsoSSu7t9+ZNOqiFV1nnrOFOKrTOcOmL+ZGEbmj/ s6QQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jeujdYAcVnbhFUY0Pdy6x3E01qlm+iGtPbe8N+Tr3lg=; b=E1mj8zqb1ohlfUBqvk5IWUJvIigGhfduDA4Aa7LMDS2laLkeOtBTWpR+I0LpwR/b4n 1OOm+b6tSscz6qxmfKcpA7HWR+djxN6FyamCYLA7Wfg1ipf2m5tesOTIzc7A1ycJw5Yh 1JQiDBUIYbSGEOXVLLcKEi2TVWGMI/VT5D0Pq6+kvFRVU3L8BXPoRO52c+bbV1Hg0hUF 77TgdyunCrfUpf4R9WaW/Y4PwKjvRy0WsOXEHoKuRSak1kwwe5jKxZ7hq8hcD1GZc6Mo MN3aCgdmY6bQWw/8mXiYx69PykLEhGdSOb0KwK4ezZRXHJQC2FoEnnJWOEOrSkAtDjmr KvJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKnw9bQYa3vpPQXRSX8oUidIToptI2oEmX+bR2j/4D8KKd+EqUVzY06j5Tv5TXG7jDfZPgW8co358AIcg==
X-Received: by 10.37.230.142 with SMTP id d136mr14869481ybh.121.1485860676404; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 03:04:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.221.132 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 03:04:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.221.132 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 03:04:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-cPW-KMPRshpg5C3C=w5hSLWpbhLktssEmQq=ozdusZEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DFD97C10-83BB-4BDB-A4BB-11420089C56F@sinodun.com> <a531bba9-b029-facc-063a-761d5902d14a@gmail.com> <CAKKJt-f09AcuXRQfsr1vb1Z5VnuWNN-jG=POp948dRmzc7fMZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-cPW-KMPRshpg5C3C=w5hSLWpbhLktssEmQq=ozdusZEw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:04:35 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-d3FwyvvXu=UD05fFzLM1wmYX0=nYj7Entg-YrtOXLvEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0af9cccd92ea054761e556"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/_GezZ_yZmBYdMOlEJ3Zf_MTV2MA>
Cc: mtgvenue@ietf.org, John Dickinson <jad@sinodun.com>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:04:39 -0000

Hi, All,

On Jan 30, 2017 13:26, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

John,

> In general, the document is very light on accessibility issues and
> perhaps, given the wide range of potential disabilities, the authors
> could consider getting some professional advice. Maybe it is something
> the ADA could help with??

Possibly this issue is complex enough that it needs to be the subject
of a separate document (which doesn't especially need to be an RFC).
In this document we could focus on the IAOC's responsibilities to
address this topic and to seek advice. You raise the issue of rough
sidewalks, which for most of us was just an annoyance in Toronto; I'm
sure that people with poor sight or hearing have their own issues at
certain meetings.

Regards
   Brian

On 31/01/2017 07:58, John Dickinson wrote:
> Thanks to all who have put so much work into this draft and to the past
> meeting organisers who have organised many fantastic meetings.
>
> As a wheelchair user I have a few comments…
>
> §3.1. There is no mention of accessible transport between airport and
> hotel. At every meeting I have to remotely pre-book a wheelchair
> accessible taxi for the airport transfer, some of which (even though
> arranged via the venue hotel) turned out to be unsuitable/unsafe. At the
> last Hawaii IETF we were told that there was only one wheelchair capable
> taxi on the entire island that had to be booked days in advance for any
> trip!
>
> §3.2. Could someone explain the reasoning behind the different
> requirements levels for “The Facility permits easy wheelchair
> access.” and “The Facility is accessible by people with
> disabilities.”? I have just seen the discussion between Dave and
> Stephen. Dave, could your comments defending the difference be added to
> the draft to justify the distinction.
>
> §3.4 Same question again. Also, I would like to see some mention of a
> pool of accessible rooms being available in the IETF reservation and
> that those rooms be reserved for people who require them. I don’t know
> how large this pool needs to be. In Yokohama due to maintenance at the
> hotel there were no fully wheelchair accessible rooms in the hotel.


I apologize in advance for this, but do people have a sense of how often
"is this venue accessible?" (for some value of "accessible") degenerates
into "well, it WAS accessible, but the city nuked the sidewalks two weeks
before the meeting/the hotel started renovations on the accessible
facilities we were counting on/etc."?

The answer to that may just point out imperfect our world is, so no
document change is required, but I thought I should ask, even if it's to
improve my own understanding ...

Thanks,

Spencer

> §3.5 “as well as areas within a reasonable walking distance
> or conveniently accessible by a short taxi, bus, or
> subway ride, have convenient and inexpensive
> choices for meals that can accommodate a wide range
> of dietary requirements.”
>
> A reasonable number of the areas and restaurants also need to be
> accessible. In Toronto, and Berlin we ended up using a bike lock to
> secure my chair in the street. IIRC the state of the sidewalks in
> Toronto were almost inaccessible for people without disabilities! The
> pavements in Bueno Aires were also heavily damaged in places.
>
> Venue and Lodging:
> In several recent meetings there have been areas of the hotel or venue
> that were off limits due to wheelchair lifts that could only be operated
> by a member of staff with a key. I am lucky enough that I can still walk
> short distances but for others it would (in Toronto I think) have
> prevented access to the bar!
>
> Heavy doors: It is often the case that meeting room doors are so heavy
> they could not be opened by an unaccompanied wheelchair user.
>
> I have been to several meetings (not just ietf) where coaches to social
> events could not accommodate a non-collapsible chair. I either walk on
> the coach and hope that the other end does not involve too much walking
> or I have to make my own way there.
>
> In general, the document is very light on accessibility issues and
> perhaps, given the wide range of potential disabilities, the authors
> could consider getting some professional advice. Maybe it is something
> the ADA could help with??
>
> I know we don’t live in a perfect world and I don’t expect
> everything I described to be perfect in every location but at least
> these things (among may others) should be considered.
>
> John Dickinson
>
> http://sinodun.com
>
> Sinodun Internet Technologies Ltd.
> Magdalen Centre
> Oxford Science Park
> Robert Robinson Avenue
> Oxford OX4 4GA
> U.K.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> Mtgvenue@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>

_______________________________________________
Mtgvenue mailing list
Mtgvenue@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue