--On Thursday, 29 November, 2007 08:42 -0500 Dave Crocker
<dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net> wrote:
...
I do not see the mere fact of any renovations as making a
place unusable. However, failure to honor reservations,
running jackhammers next to meeting rooms, and the like, do.
So, again, I think there is a big difference between things
that alter degrees of "convenience" or, perhaps, environmental
aesthetics, versus things that make the facility unusable.
I see this is a simple issue that is not very subtle. If a
hotel cannot guarantee reasonable usability, then no rate is
low enough.
In a backwards sort of way, I think we agree... we are just
looking at this from different perspectives. If a hotel offers
us a cheap rate but doesn't bother to tell us about the
jackhammers, even if we ask, then there is some very bad
behavior going on. And, if they offer us a sufficiently cheap
rate relative to their norms, I believe we should be questioning
the deal very carefully.
If a hotel says "well, we are remodeling, but we are sure it
won't inconvenience you in any way, and here is this super-cheap
rate", I think we need to view the rate with great suspicion
and treat the promise the way we treat commitments from the
average snake-oil salesman, especially because we know from
experience that on-site hotel staff (even ones we know well)
often have little control over construction contractors who have
their own supervisors, contracts, deadlines, etc.
Where we may differ is that I think we have enough experience at
this point to know that, if there is going to be significant
construction/ renovation going on, guarantees of reasonable
usability are meaningless in practice and your "no rate is low
enough" principle applies. If they make a guarantee and then
can't keep it after we arrive, or even behave in particularly
egregious ways (of which canceling reservations would certainly
be an instance), all we can do then is talk about penalties.
And, while penalties may help us feel good, may help the budget,
and the meeting fees a year out, they don't do a thing to help
us recover lost productivity or lost time.
So I am suggesting that, unless as part of the deal, Ray and the
IAOC are able to actually get the construction plans, form their
own opinions about the likelihood of disruption, and, to the
extent needed, and verify and get commitments from the
construction firm about non-interference, it is time we start
considering "doing some renovations" to be a hard negative on a
particular facility, regardless of what rates they are offering
us. And part of that is that, if a hotel guarantees us "no
renovation work", the penalties for breaking _that_ guarantee
should be painful and set in whether we are actually disrupted
or not, just to make sure it is clear that behavior is
unacceptable and non-negotiable.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf