On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 12:56:36PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > FWIW, I agree that it's a bit odd to have the second hand smoke > requirement and not the mold requirement. I have no special knowledge, but I supsect the difference for the editors and AD was a practical one. It's easy to ask a venue whether they permit smoking in the building. But if you ask a hotel whether they allow mould growth, they're always going to say the same thing: "Of course not." They will say that even if you can see water damage, I bet. I think we're not asking the secretariat to ascertain whether the hotel enforces the smoking policy, and similarly we're not asking the secretariat to do mould presence testing. I don't think we're in a position to ask that sort of measurement analysis from the site venue selection. If we actually _want_ that from the selection process, I think that we need to make that clear (and then figure out how to pay for it, because it won't be free). Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
