Subject: [Mtgvenue] Where we are, post #2

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:47:16 -0900

Hi, all:

This post will try to identify questions under discussion
in which there is no agreement.

1) Stephen raised questions about temporal aspects of the policy -
that a venue's acceptability may change.  After some disagreement,
he further clarified that he thinks that section 5 should contain
a substantive statement that the IAOC would publish how they're
diverging from the processes laid out in this document and then
get community feedback.  Dave asked if there's some reason
that this should be treated differently from how other documents
change and Stephen answered that he thinks that processes will
change more often than the document will be revised.

So, we need to bring this to closure.

2) There was disagreement about the use of the phrase "business
travel" in section 3.2.  Brian proposed "typical business travel"
in its place.  I don't think I've seen any comments on this, and
it should be an easy one to close out.

3) The food discussion is, as usual, somewhat contentious.
Stephen has proposed that accommodating chosen dietary restrictions
should not be mandatory.  My understanding from his messages is
that the scope of "chosen" includes religious and ethical
dietary restrictions.  At this point I'd be interested in hearing
from anyone who agrees with that, as he appears to be alone on
that one.

There's also a long list of issues raised in the last 24 hours
on which there's been no little or no comment, including a detailed
review of the text regarding accessibility posted by John
Dickinson.  We'll circle back around to those later today.

Thanks,

Melinda

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:30:08 +1300

Hi Melinda,

Thanks for the attempt to bring clarity.
> So, we need to bring this to closure.

I think his point has some merit. Perhaps it can be met by a
small addition in

>> 5.2.  Consultation
...
>>    d.  On a public web page, the IAOC lists all candidate cities, when
>>        community input was solicited, and if a city is to be considered
>>        as a potential meeting location.

Add to this:

 If the IAOC has decided to waive any requirements for a
 particular location, or to consider additional requirements,
 this will also be noted on the web page.

That is both transparent and future-proof.

> from anyone who agrees with that, as he appears to be alone on

I disagree. Further, I suggest that we duck the question by simply
deleting the words "health-related and religion-related". It's
not our business why people have dietary restrictions.

   Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:49:05 -0800

> not our business why people have dietary restrictions.

I seem to recall that those additional words were negotiated after some 
discussion, but I can't remember the final reason that that called for 
including them.

Without those words, the entry would read:

         A range of attendee's
         dietary requirements can be satisfied with
         robust and flexible onsite service or through
         access to an adequate grocery.

In editorial terms, that certainly sounds clear and meaningful.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:40:42 -0500

> In editorial terms, that certainly sounds clear and meaningful.

The only problem with this text is that "a range" isn't defined, and would not be sufficient to clue in a clueless IAOC.   It will do fine if the IAOC _isn't_ clueless.   I don't know if we can do much better than this in a document of this sort, but I hope no-one imagines that this text guarantees a successful outcome.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:54:42 -0800

On 1/30/2017 3:40 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> The only problem with this text is that "a range" isn't defined, and
> would not be sufficient to clue in a clueless IAOC.   It will do fine if
> the IAOC _isn't_ clueless.   I don't know if we can do much better than
> this in a document of this sort, but I hope no-one imagines that this
> text guarantees a successful outcome.

In terms of IAOC decision-making, it's difficult to imagine that the 
added words -- or rather, the words being proposed to drop -- would give 
meaningful, additional guidance.  So I think the concern you raise is 
present with either form of the entry.  (Not that you implied otherwise; 
I'm just trying to be thorough...)

It's also difficult to imagine that any finite amount of additional 
language would provide meaningful detail that would be sufficiently 
complete to be useful, or that we could develop it in finite time.

So, yeah, no guarantees.  But the utility of the entry is that it 
targets a basic issue and makes dealing with it a requirement.  Where 
the only 'detail' is mandates is that the combination of nearby grocery 
and onsite service handle a wide range of dietary needs.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:14:29 -0900

Looking for feedback:  Does anybody object to Brian's proposed
text?  Silence will imply that it's acceptable.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:18:10 -0900

On 1/30/17 2:40 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:49 PM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

> would not be sufficient to clue in a clueless IAOC.  

A couple of points:

1) I don't think that we're likely to have an IAOC
meetings committee on which no member has a clue about
this stuff, and
2) since the proposed locations are going to be run
past the IETF, anyway, there's going to be a backstop
in place.

Melinda