I may be just misunderstanding your sense of humor, but it seems to me that any sort of formal experimental process is too heavyweight for this, or at least the core issue. It seems to me that what we have is...
* Jordi noticed a problem and pointed it out. * Harald indicated that the core issue had been noticed before and fixed, but the fix had apparently come unglued between the last meeting and this one... without anyone but Jordi noticing. * Some further discussion then suggested that "get explicit consent as a condition of registration" was probably better, and certainly no worse, than "notifying people about what will happen".
I assume that, by now, Harald has told the Secretariat to apply a fix. I hope they aren't sitting on the request or, if they are, that we will rapidly see an explanation.
We've also had an almost-separate discussion as to whether it is necessary/ desirable to post names at the time of registration or whether it can be deferred until just before or just after the meeting. And there has been discussion that having the information visible from registration time forward is of advantage to some people -- whether checking on one's own registrations, checking on organizational ones, or deciding to come or not based on the presence or absence of others on the list. We don't appear to have consensus on the subject of desirability. And, on the feasibility part of the question, it seems to me that one key question is about what is feasible given other priorities and limited resources. I hope we hear from the secretariat and the IESG about that, but, at the moment, I'm waiting.
So what is there that seems to justify an experimental procedure? This seems to me to fall much more into the "just do it" (or, indeed, "fix screwup") category for the matter of consent or notification and into the "no consensus" one for the matter of posting time.
john
--On Friday, 21 May, 2004 21:21 -0500 Spencer Dawkins <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Harald,
From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 10:08 AM Subject: Re: respect privacy please !
laws. Is like if we
I don't think a legal requirement for our process can jump over thethe minutes with humandecide that we need to sacrifice one of us in every meeting to signblood, while we know that killing some one is forbidden.
Given the right choice of sacrificial victims, this could be a spectacular introduction for the first experiment under draft-klensin-process-july14-02.txt...
But let's not go there for now, OK?
Spencer
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf