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

Andrew Sullivan <> Wed, 09 May 2018 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB30127863; Wed, 9 May 2018 13:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=KFTmPv1N; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=JEM+rDsC
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u4YNdSi-Q2OL; Wed, 9 May 2018 13:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97FB2128896; Wed, 9 May 2018 13:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D97E4BF70E; Wed, 9 May 2018 20:11:11 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; t=1525896671; bh=Qe4bPzs7e5L+Us2vYhYv9G2nEBotKs+z2UEZ42e7UpM=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=KFTmPv1NIrn/7jiUq3KcQzjtYF4HwrZ/g2ZWxrF3zemkflh9zmXseKx70YXoBWAvJ cKp9Ty/iMxh0qyyimh3ilf4r3oYVeHwbtbmmc3qS2iaA0vuy7VfZ4MAiWad5kbVeBN 7UptiG3GzvrcB0hcQRYjzb0gjOToQtjNbTCqwBTQ=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LQJnu_ggOg9D; Wed, 9 May 2018 20:11:10 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 16:11:09 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; t=1525896670; bh=Qe4bPzs7e5L+Us2vYhYv9G2nEBotKs+z2UEZ42e7UpM=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=JEM+rDsCewkudBdlXTHJYpX+8gEKwIWF7Fj9lhFfe5iWfb7f4jxVKxtr8AwaV8zSp 0+lPU5aQeJ36OKmf7eR8P+cKSkqu8owPVorzzsf5yW06F9aZJEnpvz7M5wrME5slq8 m+BqjzEOMwJbTkzBynJnOwt9i663tIMAiAJ7CG/0=
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
To:, ietf <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
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: Wed, 09 May 2018 20:11:46 -0000

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 12:56:36PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> FWIW, I agree that it's a bit odd to have the second hand smoke
> requirement and not the mold requirement.

I have no special knowledge, but I supsect the difference for the
editors and AD was a practical one.  It's easy to ask a venue whether
they permit smoking in the building.  But if you ask a hotel whether
they allow mould growth, they're always going to say the same thing:
"Of course not."  They will say that even if you can see water damage,
I bet.

I think we're not asking the secretariat to ascertain whether the
hotel enforces the smoking policy, and similarly we're not asking the
secretariat to do mould presence testing.  I don't think we're in a
position to ask that sort of measurement analysis from the site venue
selection.  If we actually _want_ that from the selection process, I
think that we need to make that clear (and then figure out how to pay
for it, because it won't be free).

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan