> I don't have an objection to this data being collected, only > to it being made public without a good reason. +1 Mehmet > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Yoav Nir > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 11:02 AM > To: Avri Doria > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets > > > On Apr 24, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > In reading this thread several thoughts have come to mind: > > > > - for several years I have not been able to attend an IETF mtg in person, yet always > join in some of the sessions remotely. Is our remote attendance recorded as well, or > its it only in the chat archive? I have noticed that not all of us give our real names > when we sign in (I generally do but that is beside the point.) This would also apply to > those who are at the physical mtg but who time share between sessions. > > The handles usually map somehow to names, but only people who know them well > would know who "PHB", "MCR", "SM", and "fluffy" are. This also extends to the > minutes. You often see things like "Paul said this, Phil said that, Yoav agreed with Paul, > Peter said to take it to the list". Within the old boys' club of the working group, most > people know who these people are. Looking at the attendee list, you can pretty much > determine who Yoav is (there's only one), but there's plenty of Pauls, Phils and Peters. > > > - when I used to come to the physical meetings, I often noticed people who came to > the mtg who did not sign the blue / pink sheets. And does everyone who comes in late > actually find the sheet and sign it? > > I would say that usually they don't sign them > > > - does everyone sign their real name? do we know if anyone has ever signed the > name of someone else? How often has Minnie Mouse attended an IETF WG mtg. > > I've seen at least "PHB" on a blue sheet. I also see a lot of scribbles, that may or may > not have been an honest attempt at writing the name legibly. > > > - I thought the comment about taking pictures to record the identities of those who > read documents was interesting. For those who are recognizable this its indeed a good > record, but what about for others? Also a statement was made that no one could > complain about this because of the note well - but that only references "written, audio > and video records of meetings may be made and may be available to the public" - > nothing about still photography. Perhaps the video feature of the phone should be used > in the future. > > > > So it seems that the records are probably partial, and unreliable. They are also not > verified. Are they really useful? > > They are not reliable, and they provide as much accountability as those signatures at > the end of emails ("the contents are confidential...") provide confidentiality. > > > In thinking about why such records are kept, I sort of understand the various IPR > reasons, but wonder, whether given the unreliability of the information, it really would > be accepted as evidence. Has ever ever been a case where these blue sheet records > were accepted as evidence? > > > > If not, are there other good reasons for the blue sheets? I mean they are a quaint > historical relic and that has value for any organization, but is there a function they > reliably serve? > > I think not, but then again, I don't have an objection to this data being collected, only > to it being made public without a good reason. Stephan has provided an example for > misuse, in "for example verifying statements found in resumes". It is not the job of > the IETF to keep its participants honest to future employers. > > Yoav