Hi Mary,
At 20:02 25-02-2013, Mary Barnes wrote:
[MB] You can find quite a few articles that discuss how many people
follow a healthy lifestyle - exercise, eat their veggies, don't smoke,
etc. and that's about 10% if the population (there are US and European
studies). In is extremely common for those who do one to do the
other. The highest number I have found for the recommended amount of
veggies is about 12%, for example. If you want I can add some of
these references:
Thanks. I asked as the question might be asked. I don't think that
the references are needed in the draft.
Or, I can change the "about" to "roughly". I think the number is
likely a tad higher. My point was that it's not just too or three
people but a fair percentage of the participants.
Ok.
[MB] I was giving everyone the benefit of the doubt ;) [/MB]
:-)
[MB] I don't know that the distinction particularly matters in this
type of document. These are
requirements to ensure that some of us have food that we can eat. If
the some of requirements aren't
satisfied, some of us do not have readily accessible food to eat. [/MB]
In my humble opinion it might be less difficult to get the draft
through the process. The sponsoring AD might have a better idea.
There are a few points in Section 4 which the IETF cannot say no to
as it will be viewed as insensitive.
[MB] My opinion is that the folks that sign contracts and work with
the venue staff are responsible for
communicating those requirements and ensuring the venue can meet those
requirements. [/MB]
After Downtown Disney anyone will be able to see whether any of the
requirements were mentioned in any contract.
[MB] I personally think it's really helpful to have a very specific,
real-life example. But, I could
change it to be more general and not reference the specific restaurant
since we also had a
great place like that in Quebec City. [/MB]
I don't know how the IETF meeting locations will evolve. My guess
is that the IETF will never go to that Dublin location again. The
food outlets referenced in the draft are not available in every
country. That is why I suggested being more general.
[MB] It is an example and it's the only one I'm familiar with although
I assume other countries have similar laws. The last sentence
referencing the ADA is a very important distinction in terms of who is
required to obey the law, but perhaps it's not particular useful or
relevant to this document, so I can remove that sentence. [/MB]
I'll make a side comment first.
"IETF is an open and inclusive organization"
"inclusive" is a code word for something else.
Legal matters are generally problematic. It does not bother me if
the American Disabilities Act is applicable for Canada and
Quebec. The people from those countries might have a different opinion. :-)
If the document is published with the following text: "It represents
the consensus of the IETF community, it creates a very important distinction.
It has been said that the following does not exist: http://freebeer.org
Regards,
-sm