George, My recollection is more or less the same as yours -- that the room sizing statement was made several times. But, as people got more anxious about IPR and the risks to a standards body from contributions and influence from people who could not be identified (and, btw, whose primary affiliations could not be identified), that side of the issues got more important too and, as Brian notes, made it into BCP 25. I don't have time to do the archeology to figure out if those concerns were unambiguously applied to blue sheets or merely to IETF meeting registration lists. And, sadly, I would not be terribly surprised if we were not always telling consist stories. john --On Thursday, April 23, 2020 11:06 +1000 George Michaelson <ggm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > There you go. My memory is completely the reverse. Blue sheets > were for counts for room sizing only, and had no requirement > for a real identity and were (for privacy reasons) not > retained about individuals or used to do things which related > to them as individuals. > > And no.. I haven't gone into the mail stacks to prove that: > I'm saying what I thought had been said. Not unusual that its > the inverse of what was actually said. > > _G > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:12 AM Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 23-Apr-20 10:35, George Michaelson wrote: >> > 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? >> >> I hope we never said it. The blue sheets are proof of >> presence for the purposes of our IPR disclosure rules. A list >> of attendees is required by BCP25. >> >> As the Note Well says, >> >> * As a participant in or attendee to any IETF activity you >> acknowledge that written, audio, video, and photographic >> records of meetings may be made public. * Personal >> information that you provide to IETF will be handled in >> accordance with the IETF Privacy Statement. >> >> Brian >> >> > >> > 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 >> >> >> > >> > >>
