Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

Andy Bierman <andy@netconfcentral.org> Mon, 23 April 2012 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@netconfcentral.org>
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 E9F8F21F8593 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.504
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, 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 aGzokiIfyoV7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omr7.networksolutionsemail.com (omr7.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E71921F858B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cm-omr11 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr7.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3NHQ87G019289 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:26:08 -0400
Authentication-Results: cm-omr11 smtp.user=andy@andybierman.com; auth=pass (PLAIN)
X-Authenticated-UID: andy@andybierman.com
Received: from [75.84.164.152] ([75.84.164.152:48748] helo=[192.168.0.9]) by cm-omr11 (envelope-from <andy@netconfcentral.org>) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id AD/B1-02293-FA0959F4; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:26:08 -0400
Message-ID: <4F9590B1.7070408@netconfcentral.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:26:09 -0700
From: Andy Bierman <andy@netconfcentral.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
References: <2AC114D8-E97B-47A0-B7E0-9EF016DCB09F@ietf.org> <DCC302FAA9FE5F4BBA4DCAD465693779173ED21640@PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com> <ACDB7FE7-5C75-49C4-904D-8542AC05C66E@sobco.com> <4F9581D3.2020605@gmail.com> <20120423171307.2FA7E21F8705@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120423171307.2FA7E21F8705@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:10 -0000

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?

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.

> Mike
>
>

Andy