On 2012-04-23 06:12, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
> Hi Russ,
>
> thank you for the information.
> In this case, my preference would be not to publish the blue sheets with
> the proceedings.
>
> Reasoning:
> The blue sheet data can at some point be used to determine movement
> profiles of individual attendees at the meeting to a finer granularity
> than today and therefore can be an issue for privacy (even though I
> recognize that this is a public meeting). The fact that we "may reduce"
> the amount of subpoenas is a viable reason, still personal data should
> be handled as conservative as possible. Without a significant and
> measurable economic advantage by the publication, we should rather not
> publish this data with the proceedings.
Transparency with respect to IPR disclosures, or missing IPR disclosures,
seems to me more important than the privacy issue. I take Randy's point
that the information can be trawled for unwanted purposes, but IETF
participation always carries that risk.
Tim raised a valid point: more people might decline to sign. We already
have some of that, and I don't have a socially acceptable solution
to that.
Actually we already systematically break our rules in RFC 2418 (BCP 25):
All working group sessions (including those held outside of the IETF
meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available. These
minutes should include the agenda for the session, an account of the
discussion including any decisions made, and a list of attendees.
It's only a "should" but when did you last see WG minutes with a list
of attendees? In the old days of hard copy proceedings, I seem to
remember the blue sheets being included sometimes as the lazy way
of satisfying this rule.
Brian