Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] [HT-rt] HR-RT Review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:05:13 -0400

Dear colleagues,

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 05:38:16PM +0200, Beatrice Martini wrote:
>  
> > 3.2.2 would be nice, also because asking hotels/venues for this also
> > would prompt them to include it in their renovation plans.
> 
> Unless a country's legislation is specifically against this use of public
> facilities, this should not be too difficult to require/provide.
> 
> A venue does not need to have restrooms already designated to be used as gender
> neutral facilities.

I do not exactly object to adding this criterion to section 3.2
somewhere, but I hope people understand what it means.  Items in that
section are things that we want to have, but that we can trade away
against other considerations.  Moreover, anything that is missed in
that section must be included in the announcement of the venue.
Finally, the negotiators are instructed that anything that meets the
criteria in this section is highly desirable compared to other
criteria.

I hope people are alert to the possibility that this would mean
trading off (say) affordability against the availability of gender
neutral facilities.

In any case, I think this does not belong in 3.2.2, which is about the
Venue, not the Facility or any IETF Hotel.  The Venue seems to wide to
talk about with this criterion.

I should note for the record that, while I am currently an IAOC member
(and its chair), I'm writing this in my capacity as a long participant
in the mtgvenue WG. 

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 16:44:27 -0700

given the long thread and having a bit of free time, i decided to read
through this document.  from the discussion, i was expecting a horrible
nit-picking, micro-management, exercise in ocd, and promised myself to
just hit delete and play my one get-out-of-snark card of the week.

to my shock and pleasure, the document is mostly simple and sensible.
section 3, meeting criteria, seems to have tried to be somewhat minimal;
but once you enter that rathole it becomes a twisty maze; as can be seen
in this thread.

i would just shove this out the door and get back to seeing how complex,
unimplementable, and unusable we can make the internet protocols.

randy