IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mtgvenue] editor's take on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 01 May 2018 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 32E18129C6E; Tue, 1 May 2018 16:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=ATsoMr5d; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=dWslRVIs
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 ANUvWkKwoKAX; Tue, 1 May 2018 16:45:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89F5312D874; Tue, 1 May 2018 16:45:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA673BF281; Tue, 1 May 2018 23:45:21 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1525218321; bh=Z8OU97+1IVSoF40rfpCg/6SI+jQv85wdqKtJ17d5nhQ=; h=From:To:CC:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=ATsoMr5dEDrOcCxwYx4DK/At4EKrgn2WyoYR1ToUV119UALaLU9AtOch/E/o8atDx ijEvNrPIMGpkqQ5UJVI0KqvJ/56C5I3yA1ChCboE5d/gkAFgI/KXSF15+/zJA3dMLS 9omA8P0U+eoCjVhwrrOLMvMe2iHGZjgqGX+cTnck=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 47rEUA57qPxy; Tue, 1 May 2018 23:45:20 +0000 (UTC)
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1525218320; bh=Z8OU97+1IVSoF40rfpCg/6SI+jQv85wdqKtJ17d5nhQ=; h=From:To:CC:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=dWslRVIsnYNcIxRsL0RkuS3huPTtLWskfTAQ+IhbXc2SxGQO9DO2hmwelDHhj0rMB TIl/bYGFYhqdbcvWY+KmsKydjRQHgQZyDbKJkf2X3IIDLfChW26iMHzkFN7GyNY415 11TvQxr8YrcmFgjkJ1M6em+xQM9aaSnEyftJTCDs=
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
CC: mtgvenue@ietf.org, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 19:45:15 -0400
Message-ID: <1631e188af8.2772.55b9c0b96417b0a70c4dcaded0d2e1c6@anvilwalrusden.com>
In-Reply-To: <3CAE6814-F809-4D94-8680-F00A8F715685@mnot.net>
References: <CA+0Hr7syW5Jy8eyQxBU_GCbL+Omj0uR-x6bBB_Y0PjcNQ8wM2g@mail.gmail.com> <A1A1BC2A-9DFE-42AB-B93F-B80C306C9C01@cooperw.in> <7A3D61FB-40B2-456B-A174-407AF42783A5@gmail.com> <97CC171E239852CA5145CA09@PSB> <3CAE6814-F809-4D94-8680-F00A8F715685@mnot.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/mA49efHzwRIjBDhe6S7G3KyIRws>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] editor's take on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 01 May 2018 23:45:25 -0000

I don't have an opinion on this one way or the other, but a separate 
meeting block could be another thing to negotiate with hotels. It'd be good 
to decide whether that's Mandatory or Important.

A

--
Please excuse my clumbsy thums
----------
On May 1, 2018 18:35:46 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> On 2 May 2018, at 7:14 am, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>>
>> Given the above (and implicitly incorporating at least some of
>> Alissa's comments), do you believe it is necessary and
>> appropriate that we change our procedures to give parents with
>> small children (and possibly other groups with special issues)
>> priority on bookings in the meeting hotel?
>
> It seems like we could borrow from common practice on public transport; if 
> you're pregnant / with small children / mobility-challenged (permanently or 
> temporarily), you get access to a separate hotel booking block / preferred 
> seating in the meeting rooms.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email