Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

On May 10, 2012, at 8:42 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:

> On 5/10/12 9:32 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
>> There has never been a need to actively broadcast these massive amounts
>> of personally identifiable information (PII), and I haven't seen any
>> convincing rationale for doing it now.
> 
> To be honest, "I don't want to receive more spam" and "My boss might
> find out I skipped a session" are not reasons not to be open about
> who's participating in sessions, particularly as we drift towards a
> meetings/voting model.

Participating is one thing. Presence is another. Reporting that I spoke up against the hard-fail requirement at Websec is part of the openness. Reporting that I was at SCIM, where I never once approached the microphone is not.

>  I understand sensitivity about broadcasting
> travel plans but in general some of the arguments being offered for
> being a less open organization with a less open process are drifting
> into "The FBI implanted a radio transmitter in my teeth" territory,
> and it seems to me that making blue sheets available after meetings
> does not reveal much PII beyond what's already available on the mailing
> lists.

The FBI needn't bother. They can just read the blue sheets :-)

> There's a serious question here about tradeoffs between privacy and
> openness.  Openness is not just a core institutional value (although
> it is one - do not forget that), but it's also a defense against
> charges of collusion, which, unfortunately, we've been seeing.

And how does the existence of such a lame attempt to list attendees help in this?

Yoav