Mary, You did not answer where you think i was mocking medical conditions, even though i specifically asked you. On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:04:06PM -0600, Mary B wrote: > Did you read my document? It does exactly what you're suggesting to > address your somments at the end of your email and is why it has the format > it does rather than the simpler one you should have in your previous email. i read https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-healthy-food-07 which you pointed is to in the beginning of this thread. I can not find an executive summary, i can not a triage to concentrate first on medical, i can not see the recommendations i gave with a), )b, c). Your document looks a lot more comprehensive and maybe therefore more difficult to translate into prioritized action. > I wrote it 10 years ago after the Dublin meeting where we were stuck at a > country golf resort and the only lunch option was a buffer of random food, > whereas I had done my homework over the weekend and found that the hotel > restaurants could accommodate restrictions only to find that on Monday > lunch, you could NOT order from a menu. I've updated the document a few > times. So, yes, I have tried and tried and tried - the fact that I couldn't > get staff to arrange food so veggies were covered with cookie crumbs is a > fantastic of the level of failure. You can find these same discussions > over and over in the archives. > You are not bringing up any new points. I respectfully disagree, see above, but i also undeerstand when you want to be only dismissive about what i said and not specifically respond to it. I am happy to shut up trying to respond to your phosts on this thread. Cheers Toerless > We have made some progress, but again where this topic ended up in terms > of priority in the meeting venue document means that I have failed as > considering this issue can be traded against having a place for people to > meet socially - i.e., if a venue has a nice, large bar with cheap beer that > can easily be traded against whether there is food that can be obtained at > the venue, etc. > > The fact that we have had successful meetings where the food requirements > happened to be met quite well means your point around having to compromise > isn't really valid. We've done it well by chance before, so if we plan we > should easily be able to do it properly. > > Regards, > Mary. > > > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Mary, > > > > > BTW, your mocking of this situation for medical conditions is inline with > > > mocking someone that uses a wheelchair or is deaf, etc. > > > > Please point me to a place where you think i did that. I specifically did > > NOT intend to do anything like that, but maybe something i wrote > > could be misconstrued to read that way and then i would like to know which > > so i can improve in the future in my writing. > > > > I did mock indirectly lifestyle choices, but primarily because as in the > > case > > of airline food it caused constraints to those with other lifestyle choices > > like me. Knowing from friends with medical gluten intolerance some of those > > lifestyle choicers are actually quite useful for folks like them with > > actual > > medical conditions, so that lifestyle mocking is really only friendly > > mocking. > > > > Wrt to compromising what to eat, this naturally comes when going to foreign > > places, and one has to reccognize that a conference already has to fight > > against that base level to make it easier to collaborate internationally, > > so i would really opt to differentiate in expectation settings for medical > > vs. lifestyle and how much IETF should work on either. > > > > If you read further below into my mail, i was suggesting to come up > > at last with some written up guidance for food to venues and circulate > > that early enough with the venue. Including a classes of food required. > > Has that been tried ? > > > > Cheers > > Toerless > > > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 11:16:26AM -0600, Mary B wrote: > > > So, my situation is absolutely a medical condition and not just a > > personal > > > preference. Meetings can be extremely difficult, especially when you're > > > chairing and you have to run to the bathroom every 30 minutes because > > > you've been glutened. One important point here is that despite the fact > > > that I wore a ribbon at the last meeting that said "It's all about me", > > > there are others with this issue that seem to be of the same > > predisposition > > > as those that we are trying to protect with the photography policy - > > i.e., > > > they don't want to make a fuss. They're not going to hunt down staff to > > > find food to eat like I did in Dublin. My whole point is that if you can > > > accommodate dietary restrictions for medical reasons, you can also come > > up > > > with food that would suffice for the majority of folks with restrictions > > > including vegan, etc. You are correct that in some cases it's a choice, > > > but people shouldn't have to compromise principles to eat. And, unless, > > > it's made a priority at contract negotiation time, the idea of getting > > food > > > on the spot and having staff that are aware doesn't work well at all. I > > do > > > often contact hotels ahead myself in other situations. But, again, it's > > > NOT just me. > > > > > > And, yes, there are other conferences that do this - I've been to many. > > > I'm not gonna list them all off, but your response is consistent with > > that > > > which I've received over the past 10 years - this is too hard. The key > > is > > > that it MUST be planned in advance and you need to have a venue that's > > > willing to accommodate - not all of them are when there are crowds. And, > > > your suggestion that I just eat a salad doesn't actually provide adequate > > > nutrition - would you be happy if all you could eat for lunch everyday > > was > > > a salad? > > > > > > I realize you are trying to be helpful, but there is lots of past > > > discussions where I've done what you suggest and it's clear after 10 > > years > > > it's certainly not easy as you suggest. And, your suggestion to bug the > > > secretariat isn't particularly constructive as they've got a whole lot of > > > other stuff to do right before a meeting. And, again, it requires more > > > than just a week ahead planning. > > > > > > BTW, your mocking of this situation for medical conditions is inline with > > > mocking someone that uses a wheelchair or is deaf, etc. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Mary. > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > --- > > tte@xxxxxxxxx > > -- --- tte@xxxxxxxxx
