Hi, <editor hat firmly OFF> As the person who caused this stink by adding supporting the no smoking requirement (again with editor hat off), I think Andrew's way forward is the best. Eliot On 10.05.18 04:14, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Mary's, Ted's, and Ole's discussion of particulars of environmental > contaminents (in this case, smoking and mo[u]ld) makes me again wish > to suggest the position I held before the specific change was made to > draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-14. My position at > the time was that the Important criterion > > o Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this Venue are > acceptable. > > was what we needed. It was pretty unlikely to be traded off with any > kind of regularity, since "risk" and "acceptable" were sufficiently > flexible that we'd need to call out things that were in stark contrast > to what we normally dealt with. In any case, I thought, further > specification would be a problem. Therefore, I claimed, the above > criterion was as good as anyone could reasonably expect and it seemed > that the details needed to be left to meeting planners. (I didn't > support it becoming Mandatory because the "are acceptable" language > means that there's no test, so no way to know whether the Venue > necessarily fails.) > > We are now in the situation where we have a Mandatory criterion about > smoking in various parts of the Venue, and at least one person who > claims that such a Mandatory criterion requires site-visiting staff to > do some kinds of spot checks. It's totally unclear to me what that > would mean or what we would do if, 2 or more years later when we > actually show up, the spot checks turn out to have been wrong. > > We are now also faced with the suggestion that the same staff are > supposed to do mo[u]ld tests without having the requisite training or > hazardous materials equipment. If in fact we are demanding staff do > such things, it seems to me at least plausible that staff would have a > future complaint if we did not provide them with appropriate equipment > to undertake the tests. This is, I think, an important reason why we > cannot realistically mandate such tests. > > Moreover, once we begin requiring such tests by staff, there are other > pollutants that (1) could be required to be tested and (2) are not yet > mentioned in the document, either because we haven't yet thought of > (or discovered) them or because someone who is affected wasn't > involved in all this. > > Therefore, I would like again to propose that we go back to the > previous text -- which had the nice advantage too of having had > consensus in the WG -- and drop the new Mandatory criterion in section > 3.1, relying on staff to do their level best (as they ever have done) > to address health issues that are likely to affect IETF participants > at meetings. > > None of this, please note, is in any way intended to minimise or > denigrate the health issues (or even discomforts, for all that) people > have talked about. But we need a document that establishes > principles, not rules. If one's particular concern cannot be covered > under the principles laid out, then I think it would be most important > to raise that. But this particular change seems to me to be the > addition of a specific rule where an exising principle in the document > was already adequate to the purpose. > > Best regards, > > A >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
