Niels ten Oever <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is a review done within the framework of the Human Rights Review
> Team, is was done by Beatrice Martini and Niels ten Oever. The Human
Thank you.
> 1)
> Section: 2. Venue Selection Objectives/ 2.1. Core Values
> Text from draft:
> "Inclusiveness: We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote
> participation of anyone who wants to be involved."
> We suggest an edit along these lines:
> "We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote participation of
> anyone who wants to be involved and who may contribute to the diversity
> of perspectives represented in the working sessions"
> The edit aims to:
> * Clarify that the meeting wants to welcome both folks who already know
> they want to participate, and folks who might have great contributions
> to share but might not yet know about the IETF or how to join the
> community. In this way the document makes explicit the intention to
> proactively make participation accessible and welcoming to everyone,
> newcomers included.
I suggest you reword your suggestion to:
"We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote participation of
anyone who wants to be involved. Widespread participation
contributes to the diversity of perspectives represented in the working sessions"
the problem with the "and" in the sentence is that the sentence can otherwise be parsed
to say that we only want to facilitate partition from those who contribute to
increased diversity.
> 2)
> We find that the current draft is not totally consistent in regards to
> the affordability of participation.
This is my intepretation.
> Initially, it acknowledges that many participants are self-funded, and
> that budget solutions should be available. That's great.
> From Section 2. Venue Selection Objectives/ 2.1. Core Values:
> "Economics:
> Meeting attendees participate as individuals. While many are
> underwritten by employers or sponsors, many are self-funded. In order
> to reduce participation costs and travel effort, we therefore seek
> locations that provide convenient budget alternatives for food and
> lodging, and which minimize travel segments from major airports to the
> Venue. Within reason, budget should not be a barrier to accommodation."
> But then, in Section 3.2.2, things sounds less affordable.
> From Section 3.2.2 Basic Venue Criteria:
> "The cost of guest rooms, meeting space, meeting food and beverage is
> affordable, within the norms of business travel."
> "Business travel" has commonly a higher cost than "self-funded budget
> travel".
The intention is that the *venue* (primary hotel) should not be so
expensive as to be prohibitively expensive to even those on "business
travel". There are locations (resorts in really exotic locations) where
the nightly price of room is like $500/night. The intention is to rule
those out.
As a self-funded individual, I accept that I can't often afford to stay at
the primary hotel, but I will find something acceptable within a few
blocks. So that's how section 2 and 3.2.2 are reconciled.
> 3)
> We invite to consider the addition of a few items to Section 3.2.2.
> Basic Venue Criteria.
> 3.1)
> "All Meeting Venues should have at least one gender neutral restroom
> with stalls on each floor."
> Gender neutral restrooms are essential to contribute to the
> inclusiveness of the an event venue.
I'd like to support adding this as aspirational, but it's gonna be two
hotel renovation cycles before it can be found often enough to be a
reasonable criteria.
On the topic of being family friendly, the major thing we can do to
support families is to outside of the mtgvenue, and is with the nomcom
eligibility criteria.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
