(top post)
Tobias,
Constructing and then attacking strawmen is not helpful.
As far as I know, no one has proposed making blue sheet
information --and hence precise location information for
identified individuals-- available to the public in real time
during the meetings. As one of, I assume, many members of this
community who will not broadcast my travel plans to social
networks, etc., until after I return home, I would strenuously
object to any such thing but, again, as far as I know, no one
proposed it.
john
--On Thursday, May 10, 2012 14:23 +0800 Tobias Gondrom
<tobias.gondrom@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Russ,
>
> please forgive me for adding one more comment on that after
> you judged on rough consensus.
>
> As you said this rough consensus is quite rough (if we may
> call it "rough consensus").
> I would like to point out two things:
> 1. the statement "(1) Rough consensus: an open and transparent
> standards process is more important to the IETF than privacy
> of blue sheet information." puts transparent process in
> competition with privacy. This is misleading, because there is
> no contradiction between an open and transparent process and
> privacy of personal information on this one. For example the
> availability of blue sheet information on request by an
> authenticated person does allow full transparency without
> broadcasting the personal location information. (e.g. see also
> Ted's proposal from yesterday)
> (Furthermore, if I would be devil's advocate, I would question
> this comparison even further, because it could be misread as
> stating that the current standards process as it is today
> (with blue sheets on request) is not open or transparent...)
>
> 2. if consensus is so rough, we should also consider that the
> subject of the email discussion was maybe not clear enough
> about its impact to inform the audience of the consequences of
> the discussion and the consensus to be measured. We could
> equally have used a subject like this: "IETF wants to publish
> your specific locations / whereabouts (within 10m) on an
> 2-hourly basis during the day for each meeting and keep this
> information available published on the website indefinitely."
> It might have resulted in a different rough consensus.