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