Re: Session attendance reconciliation (was "Management team")

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

I might be mistaken, but I bel8eve that blue sheets have been subpoenaed for IPR discussions (kind of like -00 drafts), and have therefore not been discarded for some time.

Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 22, 2020, at 6:07 PM, George Michaelson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> There you go. My memory is completely the reverse. Blue sheets were
> for counts for room sizing only, and had no requirement for a real
> identity and were (for privacy reasons) not retained about individuals
> or used to do things which related to them as individuals.
> 
> And no.. I haven't gone into the mail stacks to prove that: I'm saying
> what I thought had been said. Not unusual that its the inverse of what
> was actually said.
> 
> _G
> 
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:12 AM Brian E Carpenter
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 23-Apr-20 10:35, George Michaelson wrote:
>>> I thought some things were said about blue sheets which went to "we
>>> will never do that, its only for volume and not PII"
>>> 
>>> but memory may be wrong, and .. we're not about "obeying the laws of
>>> physics" here. But.. if we did say that, don't we need to "un-say" it?
>> 
>> I hope we never said it. The blue sheets are proof of presence for
>> the purposes of our IPR disclosure rules. A list of attendees
>> is required by BCP25.
>> 
>> As the Note Well says,
>> 
>> * As a participant in or attendee to any IETF activity you acknowledge that written, audio, video, and photographic records of meetings may be made public.
>> * Personal information that you provide to IETF will be handled in accordance with the IETF Privacy Statement.
>> 
>>   Brian
>> 
>>> 
>>> Blue Sheets are not purely informational by count now: You may be
>>> identified by adding your data to a blue sheet and it may be
>>> reconciled against other records in ways which are PII, and hence
>>> invoke GDPR and CCPA
>>> 
>>> -G
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 8:30 AM Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 23/04/2020, at 9:09 AM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> This suggests something else that may be relevant.  If there is
>>>> _any_ chance that we might want to use session attendance
>>>> information for IETF 107 for anything at all, including but
>>>> definitely not limited to Nomcom eligibility in the future (not
>>>> this year's NomCom), it would probably be wise to either merge
>>>> to information from the Etherpad with Jabber logins and/or to
>>>> explicit ask people who were unable (or sufficiently
>>>> inconvenienced by technology) to record their presence on the
>>>> Etherpad to identify themselves to the Secretariat in some
>>>> appropriate way (I hope not on this mailing list).
>>>> 
>>>> Jay, is that feasible?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> For IETF 107 the secretariat reconciled the list of Webex participants with the bluesheets to create a single list on a per session basis.  Inferring a participant’s name from a jabber ID is too hard.
>>>> 
>>>> Jay
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   thanks,
>>>>  john
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Jay Daley
>>>> IETF Executive Director
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>