Re: Important Information about IETF 76 Meeting Registration

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I won't be in Hiroshima and won't be able to participate nor will I be able to opt-out, so I don't have a personal stake in this and am commenting only as an interested observer.

As has been noted, this won't be an absolutely clean, seamless replacement of the blue sheets. The list of possible downsides is already growing, e.g. privacy issues, inflexibility in choosing which email address to use for each working group, and I won't be surprised if the list grows a bit. At the same time, the list of possible new capabilities is also growing, e.g. identifying the speaking at the microphone.

This sort of discussion is similar to other settings that are introducing electronic versions of previously manual processes, e.g. in the health care industry. Let me offer a point of view and a suggestion.

Point of view: Rather than thinking of the RFID chips as serving to be simply a direct replacement of the blue sheets, take as a given that this will be a new and somewhat different technical foundation with some positives and some negatives. The blue sheets also had positives and negatives, e.g. the cost and pain of storing them, the difficulty and cost of reading them, their legal status and retention policy, etc. Look at the RFID chips from a fresh perspective, not solely as an automation of the blue sheets.

Suggestion: As noted above, similar issues apply in other settings. This community has an opportunity to tackle the interplay of technology and social policy issues that affect itself far more cogently and efficiently than most communities do. Let's grasp the nettles and see if we can work through the issues in a sensible and rational way. Do we need a privacy policy regarding the information collected? If so, let's create one. Do we need access controls on the information? If so, let's create them. Do we need an ability to edit information that's been collected if it's inaccurate? If so, let's build it. Do we need more flexibility in the information stored in the record, e.g. a distinct email address for each working group? If so, let's add it.

Steve







On Aug 31, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

At 5:55 AM -0700 8/31/09, Alexa Morris wrote:
The data collected consist solely of an individuals full name and company/organization affiliation. We are not collecting email address information on the e-blue sheets.

Please note that you are now also collecting information that *is not* on the current blue sheets, namely "company/organization affiliation". I have noted that some people I know who have signed a blue sheet before me have used personal email addresses while (I assume) their badge lists their actual "company/organization affiliation". As a person with multiple company/organization affiliations, I sometimes change the email address I put on the blue sheets to be the one most appropriate to the topic of the WG.

It is a bad idea to have this experiment create combined blue sheets that have data that differs depending on the collection method. There are probably a dozen WGs in the IETF who have had this problem come back and bite them on their collective backsides during protocol development or, unfortunately, after their protocols have deployed.

Please strongly consider having the readers record exactly what the current blue sheets record, or change the blue sheets to record what the readers are recording for this meeting. The first of these two will most likely cause less revolt.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]