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

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

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,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]