On 05/10/2012 09:49 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Warren Kumari wrote:
-- if you are active in the IETF (or even if you aren't), you email
address is already known to the spammers. Our lists, and list archives
are all public
If the blue sheets would _only_ contain PII that is _already_available_
in other places, then we should stop creating them in the first place.
The arguments of the folks that want to see it published is that
these sheet contain PII that is _not_yet_published_.
Which means we're talking past each other.
-Martin
Not even that: the information which is on a blue sheet
is not the same as the information that the former is on the blue sheet.
<flame>The arguments to publish them, even to keep them secret as today,
begin to sound close to (or stink like) those used to justify to store travel
information, mobile phone tracking, etc etc.
</flame>
The number of participants in a meeting can be counted to get an
idea for meeting planning, and then the blue sheets should be distroyed.
Or, no blue sheets at all, the chairman makes a rough count
and this number, announces it at the end, and it is put into the minutes.
<fun>could the persons who are in favor of publishing confirm that
they don't work for spam companies, secret services ... :-)</fun>
Anyway, adding an X and an unreadable address on a blue sheet
remains always an option. It serves the purpose of meeting preparation.
I did not had the impression that there was "rough consensus" for
any change.
it's weekend :-)