Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
According to the proposal, the (scanned and proceedings-attached) blue
sheets contain non machine-interpretable data (handwritten names).
Assuming this, I think our desire for transparency ought to outweigh our
desire for privacy.  It will still require a lot of manual work to
generate a maechine-interpretable version of the bluesheets suitable for
automatic processing, alleviating at least some of the privacy concerns.
OTOH, I consider it rather helpful to be able to go back a few years and
see who was attending a certain WG at a certain time, and who was not.
(Can be helpful for all kinds of things beyond facilities planning and
litigation, for example verifying statements found in resumes, refreshing
one's memory of the who-is-who in a certain WG at a certain time, and so
on.)
My view would probably be different with respect to blue sheet publication
if the content were machine-interpretable.
Email addresses so meaningless nowadays in the sense that everyone who is
careful, or already has bad intentions, can get his/her own use-once email
with only minimal planning and effort.  So let's save some time to
participants when filling out the blue sheet, and remove them from the
blue sheets as proposed.
Stephan



On 4.23.2012 12:23 , "James M. Polk" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>At 01:31 PM 4/23/2012, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>At 01:26 PM 4/23/2012, Andy Bierman wrote:
>> >On 04/23/2012 10:13 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>At 12:22 PM 4/23/2012, Melinda Shore wrote:
>> >>>On 4/23/12 6:58 AM, Scott O Bradner wrote:
>> >>>>see rfc 2418 - they are to keep a record as who is taking part
>> in a WG's activities
>> >>>>keeping track of attendees is a basic part of any standards
>> development organization's process
>> >>>
>> >>>The tension here appears to be between transparency of process and an
>> >>>individual right to privacy.  I think that the IETF has a
>>considerable
>> >>>stake in the former, not just because of the frequency with which
>>some
>> >>>little pisher or other threatens to sue over what they perceive to be
>> >>>trust/collusion issues, but because openness is an IETF institutional
>> >>>value.  I think it should continue to be.  I understand the privacy
>> >>>issues (although I won't necessary lump them as an instance of
>>revealing
>> >>>PII) but tend to think that the information being revealed is pretty
>> >>>sparse and the privacy concerns here probably aren't substantial
>>enough
>> >>>to counterbalance the organizational interest in keeping processes as
>> >>>open as possible.
>> >>>
>> >>>Melinda
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>And to put a further point on it - the last sentence of the "NOTE
>> WELL" notice (http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html) that
>> applies to each and every IETF meeting and working group session
>> and IETF activity is very clear that written, audio and video
>> records can and will be kept.  A person attending an IETF meeting
>> has no reasonable expectation of privacy for those things we define
>> as "IETF activities".
>> >>
>> >>So if someone demands "privacy", the price is non-participation
>> in the IETF.
>> >
>> >Not exactly -- the NOTE WELL applies to contributions.
>> >Is just showing up and observing the meeting considered a contribution?
>>
>>The NOTE WELL implicates any "statements", oral, written or
>>electronic as well as "submissions".
>>
>>The last sentence of the NOTE WELL says "A participant in any IETF
>>activity acknowledges that written, audio and video records of
>>meetings may be made and may be available to the public." - and that
>>puts paid to the concept that an attendee has a "privacy"
>>expectation during the meeting.
>
>How can anyone have the expectations for privacy to a meeting they
>have already publicly signed up and paid for - likely with a credit
>card that can also be tracked. To then be concerned about individual
>meeting attendance tied to a certain room during a certain time
>*after the fact* (sometimes by weeks or more) is just silly, and a
>waste of time.
>
>Scan the bluesheets, keep the email addresses for a better record of
>who is who at a certain meeting, destroy the blue sheets after the scan.
>
>James
>
>
>> >Personally, I don't think the blue sheets should even be filled out,
>> >let alone published.  The WG chairs can convey the meeting room
>> size requirements
>> >without passing around clipboards and (hopefully) everybody
>> writing down their name.
>> >
>> >There is no correlation between the blue sheets and IETF contributions.
>> >I don't see what purpose they serve anymore.
>>
>>
>>AFAIK, you're not a patent troll.  I have met them during IETF
>>meetings.  One of my RFC's was patented - without my knowledge or
>>consent.  (cf  RFC2786 vs US Patent No. 7290142)  Fortunately, the
>>record was clear that the RFC and the drafts preceded the applicants
>>"spark".  However, it might have been more interesting had there
>>been need to a) prove when the first public disclosure was made and
>>b) implicate a specific person, company or entity in being present
>>when that disclosure was made.  Hence the blue sheets.
>>
>>So they do serve a purpose.
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> >>Mike
>> >>
>> >
>> >Andy
>
>