I might be mistaken, but I bel8eve that blue sheets have been subpoenaed for IPR discussions (kind of like -00 drafts), and have therefore not been discarded for some time. Sent from my iPad > On Apr 22, 2020, at 6:07 PM, 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 >>>> >>> >>> >> >
