Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

[Tobias Gondrom <[e-mail]>]

Dear Russ,

please forgive me for adding one more comment on that after you judged 
on rough consensus.

As you said this rough consensus is quite rough (if we may call it 
"rough consensus").
I would like to point out two things:
1. the statement "(1) Rough consensus: an open and transparent standards 
process is more important to the IETF than privacy of blue sheet 
information." puts transparent process in competition with privacy. This 
is misleading, because there is no contradiction between an open and 
transparent process and privacy of personal information on this one. For 
example the availability of blue sheet information on request by an 
authenticated person does allow full transparency without broadcasting 
the personal location information. (e.g. see also Ted's proposal from 
yesterday)
(Furthermore, if I would be devil's advocate, I would question this 
comparison even further, because it could be misread as stating that the 
current standards process as it is today (with blue sheets on request) 
is not open or transparent...)

2. if consensus is so rough, we should also consider that the subject of 
the email discussion was maybe not clear enough about its impact to 
inform the audience of the consequences of the discussion and the 
consensus to be measured. We could equally have used a subject like 
this: "IETF wants to publish your specific locations / whereabouts 
(within 10m) on an 2-hourly basis during the day for each meeting and 
keep this information available published on the website indefinitely." 
It might have resulted in a different rough consensus.

Just my 5cents.

Best regards, Tobias




On 07/05/12 23:02, IETF Chair wrote:
> During the IESG discussion of this thread, we recognized the quality of the information on the blue sheets.  This point was made very clearly at the open mic discussion at the plenary and on the mail list.
>
> Some people voiced agreement with your position, and others supported the posting of this information.  As I said in my earlier message, the consensus is quite rough.  By my review of the thread, which was made more difficult by the many off-topic postings, there is rough consensus for the inclusion of blue sheet information in the proceedings.
>
> Russ
>
>
> On May 6, 2012, at 10:04 PM, David Morris wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>