I don't know if the document should be explicit about this, but certainly if it is not common practice to spot check the venue hotel, that's a recipe for bad outcomes.
On Wed, May 9, 2018, 16:37 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 04:20:46PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> I think moulds are fine, but we want to avoid mold.
Sorry, we use different spelling dictionaries.
> was in Hiroshima, asking "are the rooms nonsmoking" didn't work either. In
> both cases, the site evaluation process requires that someone actually go look
> at a bunch of rooms in the venue hotel and check to see that there isn't a
> problem, without first telling the hotel staff specifically what we are looking
> for, so that they don't know which rooms to steer us toward.
That is not how I interpret the language in the draft that has been
produced, so if it's what you're expecting I think it needs to be
clear. I think your restated requirement is that the staff performing
the site vetting not only has checked for the relevant prohibitions
and designations, but also that the prohibitions and designations are
in fact enforced. We do not have that language right now, in my
reading.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Mtgvenue mailing list
Mtgvenue@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
