Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> Mon, 07 May 2012 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FB0C21F8554; Sun, 6 May 2012 19:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.333, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mMjJ6AYWi3Tx; Sun, 6 May 2012 19:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c2w3p-2.abacamail.com (c2w3p-2.abacamail.com [209.133.53.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1735621F854E; Sun, 6 May 2012 19:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xpasc.com (unknown [68.164.244.188]) by c2w3p-2.abacamail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C0440416; Mon, 7 May 2012 02:04:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from egate.xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by xpasc.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q47242SX013132; Sun, 6 May 2012 19:04:03 -0700
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 19:04:02 -0700
From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
To: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
In-Reply-To: <92DE3992-7212-4DE4-A4FA-57AED9DFE827@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1205061851340.12673@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <97BB17A56A65B20E9FB38128@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <360B33DF-0603-4B86-B488-DDDBEDF2B10B@bbn.com> <64D096E2-78E1-4B4F-B227-42AB7B658FF6@cs.columbia.edu> <BE62B481-1FBD-4F82-92BA-EAC0D0519639@ietf.org> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1205061559060.10886@egate.xpasc.com> <92DE3992-7212-4DE4-A4FA-57AED9DFE827@ietf.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-AV-Type: clean
X-AV-Accuracy: exact
X-Milter-Version: master.24-gef8a08a
X-CLX-ID: a110AD3GD7Hu1vr-4619043
X-CLX-Spam: false
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 02:04:04 -0000

I consider that there is a significant difference between the information 
provided in the registered attendee list and the individual blue sheets:

a) to the extent that the information on the blue sheet is valid, it 
provides an hour by hour log of location, the overall list of attendees at 
most indicates an individual was present to pick up their badge at some
point during the meeting.
b) the validity of the list of registered attendees has a higher degree
of probable validity because of the requirement for a significant payment
and the processes required to process that payment.
c) Individual blue sheets can suffer from any number of unintentional and
intentional issues which limit their factual validity but not the mischief
which can be caused by their easy online access.
d) Scanning and publication imports a validity to the data which is not
widely accepted by the community.

David Morris

On Sun, 6 May 2012, IETF Chair wrote:

> David:
> 
> The list of participants and their addresses are already part of the proceedings.  The incremental difference shows which participants signed in at each session.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> 
> On May 6, 2012, at 7:03 PM, David Morris wrote:
> 
> > 
> > From my following of the topic, that concensus was really rough, in 
> > particular the part about publishing the scans on-line. That represents
> > a significant difference in ease access which I think required more than
> > the very very rough concensus you seem to think you found.
> > 
> > On Sun, 6 May 2012, IETF Chair wrote:
> > 
> >> We have heard from many community participants, and consensus is quite rough on this topic.  The IESG discussed this thread and reached two conclusions:
> >> 
> >> (1) Rough consensus: an open and transparent standards process is more important to the IETF than privacy of blue sheet information.
> >> 
> >> (2) Rough consensus: inclusion of email addresses is a good way to distinguish participants with the same or similar names.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Based on these conclusions, the plan is to handle blue sheets as follows:
> >> 
> >>  - Continue to collect email addresses on blue sheets;
> >> 
> >>  - Scan the blue sheet and include the image in the proceedings for the WG session;
> >> 
> >>  - Add indication to top of the blue sheet so people know it will be part of the proceedings; and
> >> 
> >>  - Discard paper blue sheets after scanning.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On behalf of the IESG,
> >>  Russ
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> 
>