On 5 Feb 2018, at 8:43, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Actually it is more than the facility itself, it is the venue and
transport to the venue, and there are a range of disabilities beyond
mobility that we need to take into account.
If you want a high-level requirement it is presumably something like
"that there is no reasonable impediment to a participant with mobility
or sensory disability travelling to and from the venue, obtaining
suitable accommodation at the venue, or being able to fully
participate in all aspects of the meeting"
That a pretty substantial change to a piece of text that took a great
deal of back and forth on which to come to rough consensus. Perhaps
Eliot could suggest some text to satisfy your concern that the
requirement is for more than just the facility, without having to
re-hash the whole issue.
SB> Given the support and encouragement of remote participants,
there ought to
be a note about sharing unreasonable time zone difference pain
across the
spectrum of remote participants.
I don't believe we currently do take that into account in location
selection (perhaps others can chime in), so this would be a new
requirement. We could bring this back to the WG to try and get
consensus around it, but that doesn't excite me. :-) I'll leave it to
my fearless AD to advise.
I suppose location is a proxy for this, but if we are trying to be
inclusive we ought to be inclusive to both groups of participant.
See comments from Brian, Lars, and Alissa.
8. Privacy Considerations
This note reveals no personally identifying information apart
from
its authorship.
SB> This is true, but does spawn the question of whether privacy
should
be a meeting location selection criteria?
"I refer my Right Honourable Friend to the answer I gave some moments
ago." ;-) This sounds like a can of worms. I'll again wait for AD
direction.
Hm, I doubt that I will ever advice the Queen :)
Well certainly you ought to. ;-)
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478