On 7/16/2013 11:37 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
If a venue is inconvenient or uncomfortable for a small percentage of "regular"
IETF participants, that does not make it a poor choice of venue.
How about "unworkable" or "only marginally tolerable"?
For example imposing a 'meat or die' model onto almost any kind of
vegetarian seems to me frankly offensive (and I'm not a member of that
demographic). In this day and age, ensuring good vegan options -- which
therefore work for most vegetarians -- should not be viewed as unusual
or difficult; but it does need to be an explicit goal.
Then there's the question of how small a percentage is acceptable?
If someone is allergic to literally everything, we can't do much to help
them. On the other hand, if someone has special needs that can
reasonably be accommodated by a typical, modern, urban grocery store,
then we can help them by choosing a venue near such a place and
publishing information about access to it. This is the ultimate fallback.
Similarly, there are snack foods that are basic an healthy and run into
relatively few allergy, belief or religious limitations. Providing such
choices during IETF breaks is a version of being more inclusive, to
encourage more diversity.
I've intentionally invoked the current buzzword, because ultimately
these various accommodations have to do with making the IETF more (or
less) friendly to the widest range of participants we can manage.
Some organizational empathy that is applied to event logistics will go a
long way here.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net