Re: [Mtgvenue] Comments on draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

[Ole Jacobsen <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 8/2/2016 5:07 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> > I am sorry, but I don't get your concern. Selection of any venue is
> > ALWAYS an excercise in evaluating an number of details,
> 
> The point behind declaring some items mandatory is that they are then /not/
> subject to juggling or subjective assessment.

To be clear: I think "disabled access" or whatever the proper term is
should be MANDATORY. I do NOT thin that we should be in the business
of specifying building codes, minimum door widths and so on. If you 
want to refer to specific language for those issues (external 
document) that's fine, but I still believe the go/no-go decision will
be a matter of having professional conference folks look at the venue.

> 
> 
> >    In Berlin, they
> > split a room by building an "air wall", not ideal, but workable.
> 
> ( totally off-topic, but, since you mentioned it, i'd claim that one was
> arguable, given that the air gap let quite a bit of noise intrude on the
> second room. )

Indeed, which is why I said "not ideal," but probably not bad enough 
that it prevented us from coming back (yes, the issue was discussed
extensively).


> 
> 
> > Saying that we need reasonable access for folks who cannot walk on
> > stairs (using any common terminology for access) isn't rocket science
> > when we are dealing with professional conference organizers and
> > professional meeting venues.
> 
> What you proffered was: "how about some language that says 'reasonable access
> for people with disabilities'"?  That's quite general and doesn't say anything
> about people who cannot walk, for example.

Again, I was specifically NOT offering language, but concept. I am 
sorry if that wasn't clear.

> 
> In any event, it was specific wording and so I took it to be a specific
> proposal.  Hence my comments.
> 
> As for rocket science, actually quite a bit of the support for folks with
> limitations has taken many years to develop and refine.  Possibly more years
> than it took to get to the moon...  And places often still get the details
> wrong.
> 
> d/

Yes, I know and I understand, so what do we do about it? Bring a 
"disability expert" along for the site visit? That might be a 
solution.

Ole