(Finally back after a prolonged sabbatical - last few months have been too weird/hectic for me to do much of anything IETF-related).. On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:55:50 BST, Tim Chown <tjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:05:00AM +1000, grenville armitage wrote: > > > > This could be solved by the IETF insisting that consent is required > > before attendance. I, like John, do not believe it is acceptable for > > the IETF meetings to be populated by anonymous attendees. > > The issue is someone knowing where I am for a week, in advance. It's amazing how many people, even on security-related mailing lists, are surprised when this aspect of Out-of-Office replies is pointed out to them.. > Harald's suggestion of releasing the list post-event is an improvement... I tend to concur here - I think a "The following people attended" list published after the fact, with optional suppression of contact info and/or affiliation, is sufficient to address the "openness" issue. Whether suppression should be opt-in or opt-out is debatable - I wouldn't have a problem with my e-mail address and affiliation being listed in that context (even though I do have issues with it elsewhere), but I can sympathize with those who feel otherwise. > Maybe I'm using an alias... I could be Jim Fleming :) Waving my patent-pending kook-o-meter over your email and Jim's produces different characteristic patterns... so I doubt it. ;)
Attachment:
pgp00439.pgp
Description: PGP signature