Inline On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 05:12:27PM -0600, Mary B wrote: [...] > we might consider some of their other policies that could be adopted > including dealing with allergies: > http://www.sirensconference.org/about/questions.html#photography (just > below the photography FAQ item). > I feel very disheartened that it's almost 10 years since I first wrote my > draft trying to raise awareness of the issue: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-healthy-food-07 > > And while we've made some progress, the discussion in meeting venue still > left the food issue as a would be nice and not mandatory. Also, my > document highlighted 4 requirements in dealing with this: > > 1. The meetings should be held in a location where markets that sell > foods for special diets are conveniently located. > 2. The right food should be accessible to the participants at the > meeting venue. > 3. Food that is served at the venue should be prepared and served by > appropriate methods as described above. > 4. The meeting coordination and venue staff should be made aware of > participants requiring such food and should be willing to > accommodate such requirements. IMHO the document would probabyl benefit from some executive level simplifcation section: a) Enforce better labelling of food offered by IETF b) Figure out a priority list of food necessary to deal with health related dietary restrictions. IMHO, that requires to change the IETF attendee worksheet and specifically ask only (or separately) about medially justified dietary restrictions. c) Designate a CFO (Chief Food Officer) responsible for preparing with the community information before meetings about outside food options. With first priority being to provide information for health related dietary restrictions indicated by IETF participants. Aka: I am intentional insensitive to lifestyle food restrictions such as religious or other socio-culturully self-elected diets because i think that after 10++ years it seems somewhat clear that we will not make progress without triage and i would suggest to start with health and downgrade everything else to c&a) - collect/publish information first but do not try to actively work on making those lifestyle food choices more available until we have made progress on the actually medically required food options. For example: The mayority of folks asking for gluten-free do that actually as a lifestyle choice and that has ended up in the production of a lot of food to support their lifestyle but that food can still be dangerous for an actual medically gluten intolerant person. (friends of mine are, which is why i know). I am not sure if we will get those lifestylers NOT mark in the attendee worksheet "medically gluten intolerant", but we can at least try. We will see if attendees want to lie simply by looking at the stats. [rant on] When it comes to lifestyle food choices, i am also agin in your document in the neglected percentile: I can only eat "Local" or "Tasty". These are not mentioned in your document. My food preferences actually are a medical condition developed as a sensitiviy against airline food, which is "Chicken or Pasta", and that again is a result of airlines playing lowest common denominator against all those airline passengers with their ever exploding list of lifestyle food choices excluding more and more foods. ;-)) [rant off] > There is labeling of food at some of the venues some of the time, but we've > never had direct access to is a person at the venue that we can contact. > And, yeah, I can bug the secretariat and I have done so, and most of the > time things are handled, but they have better things to do with their > time. And, the number of times that those of us that have dietary > restrictions have had to hunt down staff to find out what we could eat is > way more than the number of meetings we attend. It's not such a big deal > now that I'm no longer on IAB but folks in leadership positions (some of > whom do have dietary restrictions) have a lot of meetings and it is hard to > even think about finding food elsewhere during their very long days. The problems of leadership are somewhat of a luxury problem given how they get a lot more food over the week from the event than the normal attendee. As i said in another thread, worst case there must be a "plan c", aka: get food ordered in if your medical or lifestyle choices can not be met. And make sure upfront this is permitted by venue. Figure out how to play the venues by referring to laws etc.. "plan b" would then be to create the IETF version of airline food, aka: lowest common denominator options for IETF leadership food. With gluten-free being the mayor new kid on the block, it seems you would want a a vegan/gluten-free salad and a vegetarian sandwich for lunch, and for warm servings always a rice/potato option and a vegan sauce&veggie option that includes some non-animal/nut protein. Probably need some detail refinement on these four key options to make them halal&kosher as well, but i am pretty sure that can be done. Just makes the spec somewhat longer. Shouldn't really be that difficult for most of these overpriced venues we go to. > And, the issue of cross contamination is thoroughly ignored even when I've > explicitly asked nicely when they've been arranging break food, if they > could please not put the cookies right next to the veggies at afternoon > break. Since people like to use their hands when grabbing food rather than > tongs (another social issue we have), I rarely can get something at > breaks. But, of course with tongs there, people use the same ones for > cookies and veggies. This happened in London last time - while staff were > setting up, I asked them to re-arrange and the staff told me that would > "upset the chef" but they would do it latter. They never did. If we had > access to a person, we could make sure this didn't happen. I've said > before that I"m perfectly happy to interact with the staff ahead of time to > discuss these issues. And, as I've said before, in many cases I wouldn't > have made it through meetings without the contraband food I've brought into > other countries. And, yes, we've gotten better about having the meetings > with market access (requirement 1), but actually being able to eat at the > venue would be nice (requirements 2, 3 and 4). The only time all the > requirements have been met was in Beijing and I ended with my personal chef > Eric - that was only because I just happened to meet the food service > manager on Sunday, who noted that I was eating so healthy and my response > was that what was on my plate was all that I could eat from their monstrous > buffet. He said that just wasn't acceptable. He then got the head chef, who > appointed chef Eric as my personal chef for the week. I certainly don't > expect this level of service everywhere, but the point here is that the > professionals that run the food services at the venues we use are often > very willing to be able to handle this well if they're made aware that it's > a requirement for some of the attendees. And, I do seriously mean, as > described in my document that the issue should come up during contract > negotiations. And, yes, I know about the other people that manage the > issue entirely on their own without any fussing, but for me in the past > this has involved eating a can of green beans with slivered almonds for > dinner in several situations. Although, I have found my sprouted pumpkin > seeds, that are probably illegal to bring into all the countries we visit > and some US states can serve as adequate meal replacement. I hope the absence of paragraph separators in the above text is mostly an indication of passion and hopefully less that of a medical condition, although i fear it might be frist triggered by the second ? ;-( In any case, see my initial a), b), c). Prioritize the resolution by starting with medical. Otherwise its too easy to get lost in too many options and continue running up against windmills. And try to focus on one or two incremental achievements for every IETF and try to push those through. Can't be that difficult to bug IETF personnel in the week before IETF to always get the name of the chef and have that discusion. You may just need to volunteer for that CFO role i suggested firsst times and then try to pass on the responsibility when its an established success. > And, yeah, I realize to most of you all, this is just me whining about food > yet again. But, just imagine the uproar in this community if you all > didn't have cookies for even one day at the afternoon break. Its worse. Now i am even afraid of just taking photos of the empty cookie trays when i am a minute too late - in fear of capturing the likeness of someone equally starved as i am. > Or your sodas and the only beverage available all day was water. I am pretty happy that i am mostly too late to catch any soda. > And, again, other > organizations consider this important, so it's not clear to me why this > can't be the case for IETF. Especially, now that we seem to have become > so sensitive about what some might consider to be "personal issues". I have not done a scientific comparison with other conferences, i wold doubt they fare any better than IETF given the same amount of financing. Do you have concrete evidence (same price, better results )? > Now...back to my drafts... Me2 ;-) Cheers Toerless > Regards, > Mary. > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Joel, > > > > Yes, we discussed this video issue in the IESG before we wrote the policy. > > I think there are three relevant differences: > > > > 1. Video actually is important to our operations both for documenting the > > meeting and to allow remote participation. > > 2. The actual act of videography the way we do it is fairly unobtrusive to > > the subject, by contrast to still photography, which can be intrusive even > > if the photos are never published [0] > > 3. The video that we take is actually pretty hard to work with to find a > > specific point, as anyone who has tried to work with the archives to get > > clarity on the minutes knows. > > > > So, yes, this line is a bit fuzzier than I would like, but I think for the > > reasons above, this is about the right place to draw it. > > > > Best, > > -Ekr > > > > > > [0] Yes someone can really get in your face with a video camera, and I > > would hope that we would discourage that as well, but that's not what > > meetecho is like. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > >> So explain to me why we will allow people to prohibit posting of still > >> photos of themselves, but we will not prohibit video of them? > >> > >> It's not like they can stop others outside our purview from taking stills > >> from the video and re-posting them. > >> > >> Frankly, given modern technology, the difference between video and still > >> pictures is minuscule. I was trying to stay out of that aspect of this > >> policy. But you have chosen to push it. > >> > >> Yours, > >> Joel > >> > >> On 3/2/18 6:20 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>> <mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > >>> > >>> The fundamental driver here is organizational transparency. Our > >>> leaders are accountable to the community. > >>> > >>> > >>> Yes. That's why we have videography, minutes, etc. We are talking very > >>> specifically about published *still* photography. > >>> > >>> -Ekr > >>> > >>> > >>> I am sorry, the image of declaring that the IEtF chair can require > >>> that photographers not talk pictures of the IETF chair when > >>> presenting to the community seems explicitly wrong to me. > >>> Equally, the image of a Working Group chair saying that he or she > >>> can not be photographed while running a working group session seems > >>> completely counter to the transparency and accountability of our > >>> organization. > >>> > >>> We do place behavioral expectations and constraints on our > >>> leadership in many ways. > >>> > >>> Yours, > >>> Joel > >>> > >>> On 3/2/18 6:07 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Joel M. Halpern > >>> <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> <mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> One of the aspects that concerns me about the policy is > >>> that it > >>> seems to allow our leadership to require that their images > >>> be > >>> removed from pictures of them doing their job. > >>> > >>> > >>> I don't understand the motivation for this proposal, and it has > >>> clear downsides in terms of discouraging participation by people > >>> who wish not to be photographed. > >>> > >>> Why should being a leader require you to have your picture > >>> publicly posted? Your appearance isn't any necessary part of the > >>> leadership function. > >>> > >>> In case it's not clear, the purpose of the text about panels is, > >>> like the text about large groups, a concession to practicality, > >>> not derived from the notion that leaders inherently have some > >>> diminished right to privacy. > >>> > >>> -Ekr > >>> > >>> > >>> Yes, there is text about panels. But that seems > >>> insufficient. I > >>> would suggest we add: > >>> > >>> IETF Leadership (such as IAB members, IESG members, and > >>> Working Group > >>> Chairs) should understand that when they are performing > >>> their formal > >>> duties they may be photographed, and those photographs > >>> may be > >>> displayed in public. > >>> > >>> That would be in addition to the existing text about > >>> panels. Thus, > >>> it would cover WG chairs and cases where for example the > >>> IAB Chair > >>> or IETF chair are presenting even without a panel of others. > >>> > >>> I will leave it to others as to whether the example lsit of > >>> leadership needs to be more comprehensive. I hope that we > >>> do not > >>> need to be more specific about what we mean by performing > >>> their > >>> formal duties. > >>> > >>> Yours, > >>> Joel > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > -- --- tte@xxxxxxxxx
