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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2018 23:13:01 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Meeting Venue WG of the IETF.

        Title           : IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process
        Author          : Eliot Lear
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-14.txt
	Pages           : 14
	Date            : 2018-05-08

Abstract:
   The IASA has responsibility for arranging IETF plenary meeting Venue
   selection and operation.  This memo specifies IETF community
   requirements for meeting venues, including hotels and meeting room
   space.  It directs the IASA to make available additional process
   documents around that describe the current meeting selection process.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-14
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-14

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-14

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 10:48:49 +0200

This draft addresses feedback from LC.  It includes the resolutions
Alissa previously mentioned, in addition to a small number of agreed
edits (update normative language, correct grammar, add some
informational text around inclusivity, no smoking).

Eliot

On 09.05.18 08:13, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 11:33:49 +0100

3.2.5.  Food and Beverage

Please could we mention the long standing tradition of having and ice 
cream break on Thursday afternoon, something which seems to have been 
forgotten these last few meetings?

- Stewart

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 13:17:59 +0200

Ice cream happens when it is sponsored.

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor & Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Cell: +1 415 370-4628
T-Mobile: +1 415 889-9821
EE UK: +44 7805 977889
Docomo: +81 90 3337 9311‬
http://protocoljournal.org

Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 May 2018, at 12:33, Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 3.2.5.  Food and Beverage
> 
> Please could we mention the long standing tradition of having and ice cream break on Thursday afternoon, something which seems to have been forgotten these last few meetings?
> 
> - Stewart
> 
>

---

From: Mary B <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 11:47:42 -0500

I personally do not find it acceptable that the bullet was added for
Non-smoking, yet mold is totally being ignored.  Mold has the potential to
have far more severe health impacts than secondhand smoke.  I can point to
tons of published medical research on this topic.  Just because some feel
it is a harder thing to accommodate doesn't mean it should be of lower
priority than smoking.   And, no it's not just me that's impacted - I just
have a more overt reaction, but 25% of our participants are being impacted
- it's an additive impact.  And, the impact on a fetus should one of our
participants be pregnant can be significant (again, I'm happy to provide
research).

Symptoms of mold illness start as very non-specific and many just think
their allergies are getting worse (which is one aspect but the inhaled
mycotoxins are not recognized and removed due to an innate immune system
defect.   And, the fact that we had a meeting in a venue that had such
overt, obviously long term, water damage just isn't acceptable and clearly
means that unlike the smoking issue it isn't a "current (implied)
practice"  to avoid such, as Alissa noted in her email with regards to
smoking.  I've offered to educate folks on some basic things to look for
and how to do a very, very simple test.  And, no this would not
significantly limit venues since this has been the only venue where we have
met for the 20 years I've attended IETF that had the issue.   That's a
bogus argument for not addressing this concern.

And, while some folks might think that I just shouldn't attend meetings in
places that have a higher risk,  I will continue to do so as long as my job
requires.  And, any building can have toxic mold no matter where it's
located.  I go to many places that have water damage and some mold, but
don't have an overt reaction because it's not the toxic levels that we
encountered in Singapore.   And, if I go to Bangkok, I will be prepared -
Tyvek suit, mold mask and most importantly a test kit so I can get a sample
if I encounter issues.    I do find it quite ironic that we have a RG to
look into human rights related to protocols, etc. but the basic human right
to breath air that isn't full of mycotoxins, while attending meetings to
develop such protocols, seems to be easily ignored.

Regards,
Mary.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 12:56:36 -0400

FWIW, I agree that it's a bit odd to have the second hand smoke requirement and not the mold requirement.  They are both important, though, as our collective memory of Hiroshima no doubt tells us.  Singapore was a very interesting venue, but the airborne irritants there were pretty bad.  I do not think they were worse than staying in a smoking room, but they were on a similar level of badness, at least for me.  They weren't quite as triggering, because of my history with second hand smoke, but letting go of psychosomatic issues for a moment, I think they should be taken just as seriously.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 16:11:09 -0400

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
[email-masked]

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 16:20:46 -0400

> for it, because it won't be free).

I think moulds are fine, but we want to avoid mold.   That said, I agree that this is a valid distinction, but in fact when it's likely to be an issue, as it was in Hiroshima, asking "are the rooms nonsmoking" didn't work either.   In both cases, the site evaluation process requires that someone actually go look at a bunch of rooms in the venue hotel and check to see that there isn't a problem, without first telling the hotel staff specifically what we are looking for, so that they don't know which rooms to steer us toward.

I don't think that we can guarantee perfect results; indeed, it may be that in all cases where this would be a problem, it would also be true that the hotel operator would deliberately mislead the site evaluation team.   But it's a reasonable thing to ask for, and if the site eval team doesn't actually check to see that the hotel operator is telling the truth, there's a real risk of a repeat of Hiroshima.   I don't think that the hotel operator in Singapore would have anticipated the mold issue either—it's just how things are in tropical climates.  This is again something it's reasonable to check during site evaluation.   There is no guarantee that the check will be successful, but it's worth attempting.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 16:36:40 -0400

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 04:20:46PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> 
> I think moulds are fine, but we want to avoid mold.

Sorry, we use different spelling dictionaries.

> was in Hiroshima, asking "are the rooms nonsmoking" didn't work either.   In
> both cases, the site evaluation process requires that someone actually go look
> at a bunch of rooms in the venue hotel and check to see that there isn't a
> problem, without first telling the hotel staff specifically what we are looking
> for, so that they don't know which rooms to steer us toward.

That is not how I interpret the language in the draft that has been
produced, so if it's what you're expecting I think it needs to be
clear.  I think your restated requirement is that the staff performing
the site vetting not only has checked for the relevant prohibitions
and designations, but also that the prohibitions and designations are
in fact enforced.  We do not have that language right now, in my
reading.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 20:50:58 +0000

I don't know if the document should be explicit about this, but certainly
if it is not common practice to spot check the venue hotel, that's a recipe
for bad outcomes.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 23:12:01 +0200

What shall we do if we find mold in a tropical country?? Move the meeting to winter in Tromsø?

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor & Publisher

Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 May 2018, at 22:50, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I don't know if the document should be explicit about this, but certainly if it is not common practice to spot check the venue hotel, that's a recipe for bad outcomes. 
>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 17:38:20 -0400

> What shall we do if we find mold in a tropical country?? Move the meeting to winter in Tromsø?

Ole, with all due respect, you are belittling the issue with this reductio ad absurdum.   What is being suggested here is not that we "move the meeting" but that we identify the issue before selecting a venue.   Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 14:55:07 -0700 (PDT)

No, I am not.

Mold is more or less universally present in tropical countries. I am 
not at all sure what is being suggested by testing particular venues
for the presence (or not) of mold. We obviously should not select
places that are "black with mold everywhere," but how do you determine
the threshold? Same goes for 1,000 other chemicals that we might all
have issues with. My newly renoved room in Singapore had a strong odor
of "new carpet" for example, Japanese hotels seem to have falling in
love with "perfume machines," both are examples of things that give me
an almost instant headache.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell:   +1 415-370-4628
UK EE:  +44 7805 977889
Docomo: +81 090 3337-9311
E-mail: [email-masked]
Skype:  organdemo

---

From: Mary B <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 17:07:32 -0500

You can find mold anywhere, anytime - *indoor* mold, which is the problem
we're concerned about here is not unique to tropical countries.    I found
a pretty bad situation in Las Vegas a few weeks back (a meeting room
located under a rooftop pool).   It too had the water damaged sagging
acoustical tiles. And, the winter in very cold climates can be just as bad
as tropical climates.   So, your comment isn't particularly constructive.
If you want to better understand the issue, here's an article on the issues
of mould in buildings in Norway:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664742/

I have photos of some of the water damage in one of the meeting rooms in
Singapore.  There was obvious leaking in the ceiling in the attached
shopping area.  Unfortunately, the toxins produced by the mold don't just
stay in the place where the mold developed because air flow isn't
restricted to that area.  And, of course, anyplace that uses a lot of A/C
can be problematic and the biggest issues come in places that turn off the
HVAC when the rooms aren't occupied (that's why schools and churches in the
US can be quite bad).

There are WHO guidelines on good practices for avoiding these problems:
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/78678/E91146.pdf  Any
building can develop mold issues.  The very basic fact is that mold will
grow within 24-48 hours on a lot of building materials if they are not
adequately dried.  And WHO has developed a very nice brochure on the issues
and how to address:
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/78636/Damp_Mould_Brochure.pdf

I would agree with Andrew's assessment that the hotels will probably deny
mold problems, but I would *think* that those selecting the venue could
look at ceilings and see obvious water damage.  And, there was mold on the
walls in several of the rooms I looked at the Swisshotel.  I have lots of
photos of all these things.  And, these weren't new problems - it was clear
they'd been that way for a while.  The fact that I could get a good room at
Swisshotel is the proof point that it is possible to avoid mold even in
tropical climates.

As far as the cost of testing, an individual can do a very simple test
(called a HERTSMI) themselves for around $150. You take a swiffer cloth
(that's been kept in a ziploc before and after testing to ensure the
integrity of the sample)  and cover it with dust that you collect from
places that typically aren't cleaned frequently as the mycotoxins settle in
the dust.   I did those tests when looking to buy a condo for my son and
they are quite accurate as I also had a mold inspector do typical air
tests.

My suggestion is that at least one person that does the site visits focuses
on looking for this sort of issue and collecting a sample if there is
visible water damage. Then, I would also ask the venue how they plan to
handle that water damage and whether it's a recurring problem.  If it is,
that means they aren't properly addressing it and the place could be risky
(but again a HERTSMI test would give you a rough idea about that).   You
can collect the sample and then only test places that you are considering
signing a contract with.   I don't think it's too much to ask for the
venues where we meet to be properly maintained to minimize potential mold.
Again, the venue in Singapore clearly was not.  And, no, I don't think
trading off a toxic building so that we can meet a new, exotic place is the
right choice.

As I've said, I'm not the only one possibly impacted. Indeed, I'm lucky in
that I will know when I'm being exposed and will get out and have meds to
treat it. Others will just start feeling a little cruddy, think they're
getting a bug and return home and find they seem to be getting sick a
little more frequently and then they'll blame any lingering fatigue on jet
lag, getting older, etc.  I did that for at least 5 years before I figured
out that mold was the culprit.  And, with a place like Singapore where both
the venue and some of the rooms were moldy, some folks were being exposed
21-24 hours/day depending upon how often they left the venue.

Regards,
Mary.

---

From: Mary B <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 17:15:02 -0500

Ole - you're way off the mark - mold is found universally throughout the
world and I'm sure there's likely fungi on other planets.  The problem is
that certain species only grow indoors when there is excess moisture and
improper maintenance.    And, you can determine a threshold using a HERTSMI
or ERMI test.  A HERTSMI score >15 is not a safe place.   And, I'm okay
with meeting in places that might be considered borderline for me because I
can take my meds, although it could negatively impact others.

BTW, your chemical sensitivity is actually a symptom of an issue with mold,
so you might want to consider whether it could be contributing to any
ongoing chronic health issues.  I'm happy to forward you research
documenting why this is.  You are likely genetically predisposed as the
issue is more common in those of Northern European descent.  And, you could
well be someone that could benefit from the IETF not having meetings in
moldy venues.

Regards,
Mary.

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > Ole, with all due respect, you are belittling the issue with this
> reductio ad absurdum.   What is being suggested here is not that we "move
> the meeting" but that we identify the issue before selecting a venue.
>  Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.
> >
> >
>

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 15:35:43 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 9 May 2018, Mary B wrote:

> improper maintenance. 

***OLE: Excess moisture is either the result of something leaking or 
the result of high-humidity condensating (or just being present in the 
air). I have honestly never been to a tropical place where this does 
not hit you as soon you step off the plane. Leaks can be fixed, the 
latter is a lot harder to deal with comprehensively. Cold places have 
DRY air, so dry that we use humidifiers in the winter.

> And, you can determine a threshold using a HERTSMI or ERMI test.  A 
> HERTSMI score >15 is not a safe place.  And, I'm okay with meeting 
> in places that might be considered borderline for me because I can 
> take my meds, although it could negatively impact others.
> 

***OLE: Glad there is a test, but I still not sure what a spot-check
would uncover that we could realistically deal with prior to venue
selection, beyond the obvious extreme cases. The same goes for 
second-hand smoke which we all encounter every day in one form or
another, some places more than others (I am in France at the moment,
yikes).

> well be someone that could benefit from the IETF not having meetings in

***OLE: Sure, I am just trying to point out that HUMIDITY is the 
source of much evil in this context, I'd love to see properly 
climate-controlled rooms, but I have not seen many in any hotel or
meeting venue in the world. High humidity = tropical places, Singapore
being a prime example.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 17:50:09 -0500

> DRY air, so dry that we use humidifiers in the winter.
[MB] Overall outdoor air and indoor air in many places, yes. However, you
have places in any building that have excess humidity.  If you want to talk
about this stuff like you know what you are talking about, you might want
to read some of the materials I provided.  Being in a cold place does NOT
mean you won't have mold - the one article points out that there is excess
moisture in 30% of the homes in Norway.  And, the big problem I find in
many hotels in cold places is that if windows aren't properly sealed then
you can have lots of condensation which results in lots of water damage
around the windows. And, one of the cold places I lived as child
(Newfoundland) had a house with a crawl space and those frequently have
mold issues.   So, you are mis-informed on this point. [/MB]

> another, some places more than others (I am in France at the moment,

[MB] And I am talking about extreme places.  My reaction in Singapore
points to it being an extremely toxic place. I don't live in a bubble.  I
travel about 40% of the time right now and Singapore and the place in Las
Vegas are the only meeting venues that have caused the intensely overt
reaction I had. [/MB]

> meeting venue in the world. High humidity = tropical places, Singapore
[MB] Outdoors - yes. Indoors - no. See my point above about Las Vegas.
 You are just wrong on this one. [/MB]

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 01:13:52 +0200

I am not sure what you are disagreeing about: humidity often leads to mold, dry air less so. Condensation, leaky windows, etc, etc, all are the result of "too much water" indoors (from the air generally speaking). I never said colder climates don't have mold, I did say it is almost guaranteed in high-humidity environs, UNLESS you can really control the climate in the room/building which would include dehumidifiers etc.
Such systems are rare! 

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor & Publisher

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 12:01:28 +1200

Why don't we simply require an allergen report from the venue and main hotels? That would presumably cover mo(u)ld and other bad things, without needing to get into arguments about humidity.

I doubt if this would be considered unusual by a major hotel.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 22:14:28 -0400

Dear colleagues,

Mary's, Ted's, and Ole's discussion of particulars of environmental
contaminents (in this case, smoking and mo[u]ld) makes me again wish
to suggest the position I held before the specific change was made to
draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-14.  My position at
the time was that the Important criterion

   o  Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this Venue are
      acceptable.

was what we needed.  It was pretty unlikely to be traded off with any
kind of regularity, since "risk" and "acceptable" were sufficiently
flexible that we'd need to call out things that were in stark contrast
to what we normally dealt with.  In any case, I thought, further
specification would be a problem.  Therefore, I claimed, the above
criterion was as good as anyone could reasonably expect and it seemed
that the details needed to be left to meeting planners.  (I didn't
support it becoming Mandatory because the "are acceptable" language
means that there's no test, so no way to know whether the Venue
necessarily fails.)

We are now in the situation where we have a Mandatory criterion about
smoking in various parts of the Venue, and at least one person who
claims that such a Mandatory criterion requires site-visiting staff to
do some kinds of spot checks.  It's totally unclear to me what that
would mean or what we would do if, 2 or more years later when we
actually show up, the spot checks turn out to have been wrong.

We are now also faced with the suggestion that the same staff are
supposed to do mo[u]ld tests without having the requisite training or
hazardous materials equipment.  If in fact we are demanding staff do
such things, it seems to me at least plausible that staff would have a
future complaint if we did not provide them with appropriate equipment
to undertake the tests.  This is, I think, an important reason why we
cannot realistically mandate such tests.

Moreover, once we begin requiring such tests by staff, there are other
pollutants that (1) could be required to be tested and (2) are not yet
mentioned in the document, either because we haven't yet thought of
(or discovered) them or because someone who is affected wasn't
involved in all this.

Therefore, I would like again to propose that we go back to the
previous text -- which had the nice advantage too of having had
consensus in the WG -- and drop the new Mandatory criterion in section
3.1, relying on staff to do their level best (as they ever have done)
to address health issues that are likely to affect IETF participants
at meetings.

None of this, please note, is in any way intended to minimise or
denigrate the health issues (or even discomforts, for all that) people
have talked about.  But we need a document that establishes
principles, not rules.  If one's particular concern cannot be covered
under the principles laid out, then I think it would be most important
to raise that.  But this particular change seems to me to be the
addition of a specific rule where an exising principle in the document
was already adequate to the purpose.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 21:20:49 -0500

I agree with Andrew's rationale, and wholeheartedly second his proposal.

/a

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 14:25:26 +1200

> I agree with Andrew's rationale, and wholeheartedly second his proposal.

Agreed.

    Brian

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 22:27:24 -0400

>   o  Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this Venue are

The problem with that is that it's so vague that it can't be counted on to trigger action.   It's precisely what we have been doing up to now.   There is nothing here that would have eliminated Singapore, because there's no list of things to check.

There's a logical fallacy that applies to your response: because we can't perfectly solve the problem, we can't do anything to improve the situation.   The second doesn't follow from the first.   Imperfect solutions are better than not even trying.   So no, I am not suggesting doing spot checks two weeks before the meeting.   I am suggesting that at the time the venue is being evaluated, we check.   If between then and now a new mold problem crops up, oh well, we tried.   This means that sometimes we will try and fail, but if we never try, then those situations where an issue could have been prevented will also turn into failures, because we made no attempt at prevention.

Now, it may be that preventing mold problems just isn't important.   Maybe there really aren't enough IETF participants who would be excluded for that to matter.   Certainly people live their whole lives in Singapore and survive the experience somehow.   Well, until they don't, but we can't lay that at the feet of mold, presumably.   But the fact is that Singapore is actually an environment that can only really be safely lived in artificially—in the early 20th century Singapore suffered malaria pandemics, and the way they stopped that was by harshly modifying the environment.   

Ole implies that if we are going to meet in tropical environments like this, we have to accept mold; it would be equally valid to say that barring strong evidence that there isn't a mold issue, we should assume that venues in tropical locations will suffer from mold issues and not meet there.   Of course, the more restrictions we apply, the fewer venues will work for us, and maybe we should just stop doing in-person meetings anyway... :/

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 08:40:14 +0100

On 10/05/18 03:14, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> previous text --

+1

While the previous text is somewhat more vague, there is the
expectation that the community be informed of any likely
exceptions/issues asap, so I think it's as good as trying to
be specific about some inevitably incomplete subset of things
about which we may care.

S.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:00:51 -0400

I agree with Andrew's reasoning, but there are a few points that
I have not seen in the thread that, to me, seem to reinforce it.

(1) If one assumes that hotels will try to deliberately deceive
site visitors, then the last thing one wants is very specific
instructions in this sort of document about what we are looking
for.  If people think it would be helpful, add language to
Andrew's suggested text that indicates that those who make site
visits are encourage to verify claims, but stop there and leave
the rest of this as informal advice for those doing the site
visits.  

With the understanding that this is intentional reductio ad
absurdum, if our site visit team shows up and takes out the
hazmat suits before inspecting rooms, I can just about guarantee
that a venue will either conclude that we are likely to be more
trouble than we are worth and offer very special rates or other
conditions or that, if they have one available, the visitors
will be promptly routed to the hotel's version of a Potemkin
village.

(2) No matter how many conditions we enumerate, for a new venue
there are bound to be ones that we won't know enough about to
ask.  Do we need a requirement that the site visit team check a
venue out at the same time of year (and, using their soothsaying
powers, under the same weather and other conditions) for which
the meeting is planned?  As another absurd but plausible
example, I assume that a hotel that is routinely invaded by
venomous reptiles or arachnids during a particular time of the
year or weather condition would not go out of its way to tell us.

(3) Mold is another hazard that interacts badly with our very
long lead times.  Suppose the site visit team shows up, finds
mold at a problematic, but not highly critical level, and points
that out to the hotel (or the hotel notices that they are
noticing).  So the hotel says "we know we have a problem in a
few rooms and have a major mitigation effort scheduled for X
months from now".  Do we believe them?   Do we go to the extra
expense of scheduling follow-up site visits to check, knowing
that, if they are inclined to lie, theater for our benefit would
be fairly easy.   

Some types of mold also don't take a really long time to
develop.  Noting that there are places in the world with
normally very dry climates that have a few weeks of torrential
rains almost every year, do we send a site visit team back a
couple of months before the meeting to verify that the hotel has
not developed a problem in the interim and move the meeting city
if it has?  Or perhaps warn people with special sensitivities
and offer to waive the registration cancellation fee when the
reason for cancellation is such a warning?

(4) I note that very similar issues can occur with other types
of health issues than mold and with safety issues as well.  A
hotel that is inclined to lie about non-smoking enforcement is
likely to have enough sense to route site visitors to clean
rooms even if those visitors don't explicitly call out the issue
they are looking far (one needs to assume some sophistication in
any venue that can otherwise accommodate an IETF meeting -- we
are not talking about a mom and pop B&B here).  Circumstances
change there too -- a venue that has good policies and
smoke-free rooms several years out might have gotten sloppy (or
hosted a smoker's convention and not realized that was what they
were getting into) a short enough time before our meeting to be
unable to completely clean up.  Hotels have also been known to
change management and with it, the seriousness with which
various policies are taken (for better or worse) even if the
announced policies themselves do not change.   Even the safety
environment can change: while there have been "what if"
discussions about particular venues that have, IMO, gotten
fairly silly in the past, radical changes of government and
policy do happen (I note that we are not meeting in San
Francisco in July and that our having sufficient lead time on
that one is more about luck than our good planning) and so do
sudden crime waves.

None of this in intended to minimize the importance of any of
the issues and proposed constraints, mold included.  However, I
think we either need to accept that we cannot completely control
(or predict) our venue environments --and write our documents
accordingly-- or we should just stop this and abandon face to
face meetings.

best,
   john

--On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 22:14 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
> 
> Mary's, Ted's, and Ole's discussion of particulars of
> environmental contaminents (in this case, smoking and mo[u]ld)
> makes me again wish to suggest the position I held before the
> specific change was made to
> draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-14.  My
> position at the time was that the Important criterion
> 
>    o  Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this
> Venue are       acceptable.
> 
> was what we needed.  It was pretty unlikely to be traded off
> with any kind of regularity, since "risk" and "acceptable"
> were sufficiently flexible that we'd need to call out things
> that were in stark contrast to what we normally dealt with.
> In any case, I thought, further specification would be a
> problem.  Therefore, I claimed, the above criterion was as
> good as anyone could reasonably expect and it seemed that the
> details needed to be left to meeting planners.  (I didn't
> support it becoming Mandatory because the "are acceptable"
> language means that there's no test, so no way to know whether
> the Venue necessarily fails.)
> 
> We are now in the situation where we have a Mandatory
> criterion about smoking in various parts of the Venue, and at
> least one person who claims that such a Mandatory criterion
> requires site-visiting staff to do some kinds of spot checks.
> It's totally unclear to me what that would mean or what we
> would do if, 2 or more years later when we actually show up,
> the spot checks turn out to have been wrong.
>...

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 10:25:09 +0200

Hi,

<editor hat firmly OFF>

As the person who caused this stink by adding supporting the no smoking
requirement (again with editor hat off), I think Andrew's way forward is
the best.

Eliot

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 11:43:16 +0100

It seems to me that "no-smoking" is a pretty standard policy and 
relatively simple to include and to police.

Beyond that, unless a more practical assessment method can be proposed, 
best effort is all we can do.

- Stewart

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 08:09:15 -0400

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:43:16AM +0100, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> It seems to me that "no-smoking" is a pretty standard policy and relatively
> simple to include and to police.

_How_ is it simple to police?  That's part of the problem with it.
It's trivial to find out whether a given locale prohibits smoking or
whether a given hotel has a no-smoking room block.  It is quite a bit
harder to be sure, two or three years in advance, whether that
prohibition will actually be working in the Venue.  In some parts of
the world, I have been in hotels on non-smoking floors where I could
actually see the smoke seeping out underneath someone's door.  What
exactly are we going to do in that case?  Move the meeting?

Remember, this is a document that is supposed to be about venue
_selection_ (its short title actually is "Venue Selection").  I think
it is reasonable to have an Important criterion that health and safety
be taken into account.  I think Mary's observations about spores and
water-damaged ceiling tiles are likely to be helpful for future site
visits, and I think the site visitors would probably make a remark if
the hotel smelled strongly of tobacco smoke.  But lists of specific
prohibitions (particularly Mandatory ones) need to come with some kind
of directive to action.  For this to be really Mandatory, then, we
need the requirement to be contractual language.  If we're going to
insist on a no-smoking-and-you-must-rectify term in our contract with
the hotels, we're going to have yet another term that makes us hard to
deal with and makes our prices go up.  The same is true of other
environmental contaminants.

I am sure we could, if we wanted, put such terms in a contract.  It's
just what price we're willing to pay for it.  So, how much is this
worth to people?  Would people pay US$500 a night for a hotel that
would write that contract?  If no, then it would be useful (to me,
with my IAOC hat on) to know how much people _would_ pay for it.
Otherwise, we're going to get best-efforts agreements, and these
criteria can't be Mandatory and can't effectively be policed.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Mary B <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 10:03:46 -0500

Andrew’s suggestion of removing he non-smoking bullet and adding the
general one is fine with me.  My big issue was that if we were explicitly
including mandatory requirements for non-smoking then the mold should be
given equal consideration.

Thanks,
Mary

-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 08:05:14 -0700 (PDT)

I agree.

Ole

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 17:08:00 +0200

On 10.05.18 17:03, Mary B wrote:
> general one is fine with me.  My big issue was that if we were
> explicitly including mandatory requirements for non-smoking then the
> mold should be given equal consideration. 

Just to be clear, the old text was never removed.  Only new text was
added.  That new text in Section 3.1 would be removed.

Eliot

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 15:35:34 -0500

Offlist...

You were positing that meeting in cold climates in winter would reduce the
potential for indoor mold.  That isn't the case and your notion that humid
climates mean more buildings with indoor mold is a misperception. You only
have to look at the list of the worst states for indoor mold in homes to
know that's the case:
https://www.homeadvisor.com/r/10-worst-states-for-mold/  - only 2 of the
top 10 states are places where one would consider there to be excess
humidity.  And, as I noted previously, one of the states (Nevada) is one of
the driest states in the US and I found a hotel there with really bad mold
issues.  It's NOT the outdoor climate that causes the problem nearly as
much as it is building design and maintenance.

And, btw, your humidifier that you might use in the winter in a dry indoor
climate itself can be a source of mold.  And, a poorly ventilated shower
room in ANY climate can introduce mold issues.  You are really missing that
the outdoor air has minimal impact on indoor air quality, in particular
given the fact the energy efficient building practices that actually make
the problem worse. In many cases in the US, a 100 year old house on average
has a far better air quality than one built in the 1980s.

It continues to amaze me after 20 years of IETF discussions how those with
no experience in a particular area posit that they know just as much as
those that have extensive experience and training (I have CMEs from
conferences dealing with mold issues - both the buildings and the
illness).

Regards,
Mary.

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I am not sure what you are disagreeing about: humidity often leads to
> mold, dry air less so. Condensation, leaky windows, etc, etc, all are the
> result of "too much water" indoors (from the air generally speaking). I
> never said colder climates don't have mold, I did say it is almost
> guaranteed in high-humidity environs, UNLESS you can really control the
> climate in the room/building which would include dehumidifiers etc.
> Such systems are rare!
>
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor & Publisher

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 15:36:31 -0500

Oops..I didn't offlist...didn't mean to belabor the discussion but folks
jumping in with minimal knowledge of the issue isn't helpful.

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> know that's the case: https://www.homeadvisor.com/r/10-worst-states-for-
> mold/  - only 2 of the top 10 states are places where one would consider
> there to be excess humidity.  And, as I noted previously, one of the states
> (Nevada) is one of the driest states in the US and I found a hotel there
> with really bad mold issues.  It's NOT the outdoor climate that causes the
> problem nearly as much as it is building design and maintenance.
>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:56:36 -0400

On May 10, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Mary Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:
> It continues to amaze me after 20 years of IETF discussions how those with no experience in a particular area posit that they know just as much as those that have extensive experience and training (I have CMEs from conferences dealing with mold issues - both the buildings and the illness).  

I'm actually well aware of the issue—my wife and I built a Passivhaus and that was one of the issues we had to account for.   We live in Vermont.   :)

The reason I said what I said on the list is that it's a pretty safe bet that if you are in a tropical environment, there are going to be mold issues unless the venue is taking really careful and deliberate action to avoid them.   Simply moving to a subtropical or northern climate doesn't mean there won't be, and I didn't mean to imply that.

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 20:36:35 -0400

> On May 10, 2018, at 11:03 AM, Mary B <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Andrew’s suggestion of removing he non-smoking bullet and adding the general one is fine with me.  My big issue was that if we were explicitly including mandatory requirements for non-smoking then the mold should be given equal consideration.  

We appear to have rough consensus in favor of this approach. Eliot, please rev the doc accordingly and we’ll use the next version as the basis for IESG evaluation.

Thanks all for your engagement on this last call.

Alissa

> 
> Thanks,
> Mary
> 
> On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 14:54:48 +0200

On 11.05.18 02:36, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
>> On May 10, 2018, at 11:03 AM, Mary B <[email-masked]
>> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>
> We appear to have rough consensus in favor of this approach. Eliot,
> please rev the doc accordingly and we’ll use the next version as the
> basis for IESG evaluation.

Done.

draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-15.txt.

Eliot