On 04/23/2012 10:13 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
At 12:22 PM 4/23/2012, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 4/23/12 6:58 AM, Scott O Bradner wrote:
see rfc 2418 - they are to keep a record as who is taking part in a WG's activities
keeping track of attendees is a basic part of any standards development organization's process
The tension here appears to be between transparency of process and an
individual right to privacy. I think that the IETF has a considerable
stake in the former, not just because of the frequency with which some
little pisher or other threatens to sue over what they perceive to be
trust/collusion issues, but because openness is an IETF institutional
value. I think it should continue to be. I understand the privacy
issues (although I won't necessary lump them as an instance of revealing
PII) but tend to think that the information being revealed is pretty
sparse and the privacy concerns here probably aren't substantial enough
to counterbalance the organizational interest in keeping processes as
open as possible.
Melinda
And to put a further point on it - the last sentence of the "NOTE WELL" notice (http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html) that applies to each and every IETF meeting and working group session and IETF activity is very clear that written, audio and video records can and will be kept. A person attending an IETF meeting has no reasonable expectation of privacy for those things we define as "IETF activities".
So if someone demands "privacy", the price is non-participation in the IETF.
Not exactly -- the NOTE WELL applies to contributions.
Is just showing up and observing the meeting considered a contribution?
Personally, I don't think the blue sheets should even be filled out,
let alone published. The WG chairs can convey the meeting room size requirements
without passing around clipboards and (hopefully) everybody writing down their name.
There is no correlation between the blue sheets and IETF contributions.
I don't see what purpose they serve anymore.
Mike
Andy