I thought some things were said about blue sheets which went to "we will never do that, its only for volume and not PII" but memory may be wrong, and .. we're not about "obeying the laws of physics" here. But.. if we did say that, don't we need to "un-say" it? Blue Sheets are not purely informational by count now: You may be identified by adding your data to a blue sheet and it may be reconciled against other records in ways which are PII, and hence invoke GDPR and CCPA -G On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 8:30 AM Jay Daley <jay@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 23/04/2020, at 9:09 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > This suggests something else that may be relevant. If there is > _any_ chance that we might want to use session attendance > information for IETF 107 for anything at all, including but > definitely not limited to Nomcom eligibility in the future (not > this year's NomCom), it would probably be wise to either merge > to information from the Etherpad with Jabber logins and/or to > explicit ask people who were unable (or sufficiently > inconvenienced by technology) to record their presence on the > Etherpad to identify themselves to the Secretariat in some > appropriate way (I hope not on this mailing list). > > Jay, is that feasible? > > > For IETF 107 the secretariat reconciled the list of Webex participants with the bluesheets to create a single list on a per session basis. Inferring a participant’s name from a jabber ID is too hard. > > Jay > > > thanks, > john > > > > -- > Jay Daley > IETF Executive Director > jay@xxxxxxxx >
