Subject: [HT-rt] Welcoming your feedback: Open draft review "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process". Deadline: April 19

From: Beatrice Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 14:31:42 +0200

Hello,

Niels and I had a chat about the open draft "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue
Selection Process".

Please find below our notes about it. The review deadline is tomorrow
(Thursday, April 19). Feel more than welcome to share your thoughts and
feedback!

Open draft:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

Notes:

Having organized several international events for free and open technology
communities, also of the size of most IETF meetings (1000-1500
participants, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/meeting/overview), we
very much appreciate the attention to details that the draft shows in
regards to venue selection objectives, criteria and requirements.

We identified room for potential improvements in a few sections of the
document, and are sharing them with the aim to contribute to strengthen the
accessibility and inclusiveness of future IETF meetings.

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.

* State that modeling for the participation of a greater diversity of
perspectives is critical to achieve stronger and increasingly inclusive
technical outcomes.

2)
We find that the current draft is not totally consistent in regards to the
affordability of participation.

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".

Therefore, we think that the draft is not fully consistent/clear in regards
to how much affordability of participation is prioritized.

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.

They allow:

* Transgender, genderqueer, non-binary attendees to feel safe from being
harassed or attacked for their gender non-conformity;

* Carers of children who are not of the same gender to help their kids to
use the restroom when they are not old enough to go alone.

Note: Restrooms with installed urinals are not suitable to be used as
gender neutral restrooms, unless the urinals are made unavailable.
Therefore the most suitable restroom facilities to be used as gender
neutral restrooms are those with stalls.

3.2)
"The Meeting Venue should have at least one dedicated infant feeding room
and one family restroom."

See information and suggestions about feeding room settings and policy at:
ht tp://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Breastfeeding_and_infant_care_support

Notes on terminology:

"Infant and children carers" is a recommended terminology in place of the
often used (and often incorrect) "mothers". Not all carers are mothers.

"Infant feeding" is a recommended terminology in place of the often used
(and often incorrect) "breastfeeding". Infants can be fed also with bottle,
formula, etc.

3.3)
"The event should be accessible to non-smokers and those with respiratory
conditions. Therefore all meeting spaces during daytime and nighttime
should make it possible to fully participate in the scheduled activities
without being exposed to second-hand smoke."

This means that it would not be ok to have a working session/event taking
place in a smoky room, since this would not allow all folks who want to
participate to actually be in that room.

3.4)
We believe that supporting parents with small children attending events is
a great step forward towards inclusivity.

We would like the document to address this aspect in regards to venue
requirements.

In particular, it would be helpful for the document to provide information
about the following:

* Can participants feel comfortable and welcome to have their kid(s) with
them at the event? If so, are kids under a certain age not allowed to be in
session rooms?

* Would the venue provide a childcare space and service, like a
play/activity room managed by a licensed childcare professional? See
further information about childcare at events at:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Childcare

If the organization determines that children should not be allowed to
access meetings, and/or no childcare space and service can be provided, it
would anyway be important for the document to acknowledge that the
organization is aware of the limitation that this would constitute and that
this might hinder the participation of some attendees.

4)
We invite to consider the addition of one item to Section 3.3 Other
Considerations.

Section 3.2.2 Basic Venue Criteria says:
"The Facility is accessible or reasonable accommodations can be made to
allow access by people with disabilities."

This is great!
At the same time, sometimes one person's required accommodation might
create a barrier for someone else. For example, the same session could be
attended by one participant with a guide dog, and another participant with
a severe allergy to dogs.

It would be ideal if the document could mention a consideration on this
type of conflicting requirements that might occur. For example, it could
say that, in the full respect of everyone's needs, the organizing team will
aim to find the most suitable solution on a case by case basis.

This statement should also include information about who / what team can be
contacted to ask for information in case of need.

5)
Correct typo in the title: "3.3. Other Consideraitons"

Edit: "3.3. Other Considerations"

Thank you. Looking forward to discussing further.

Best,
Beatrice