(Finally back after a prolonged sabbatical - last few months have been
too weird/hectic for me to do much of anything IETF-related)..
On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:55:50 BST, Tim Chown
<tjc(_at_)ecs(_dot_)soton(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> said:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:05:00AM +1000, grenville armitage wrote:
This could be solved by the IETF insisting that consent is required
before attendance. I, like John, do not believe it is acceptable for
the IETF meetings to be populated by anonymous attendees.
The issue is someone knowing where I am for a week, in advance.
It's amazing how many people, even on security-related mailing lists, are
surprised when this aspect of Out-of-Office replies is pointed out to them..
Harald's suggestion of releasing the list post-event is an improvement...
I tend to concur here - I think a "The following people attended" list published
after the fact, with optional suppression of contact info and/or affiliation, is
sufficient to address the "openness" issue. Whether suppression should be
opt-in or opt-out is debatable - I wouldn't have a problem with my e-mail
address and affiliation being listed in that context (even though I do have
issues with it elsewhere), but I can sympathize with those who feel otherwise.
Maybe I'm using an alias... I could be Jim Fleming :)
Waving my patent-pending kook-o-meter over your email and Jim's produces
different characteristic patterns... so I doubt it. ;)
pgpxh81OzWqdh.pgp
Description: PGP signature