ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

2012-04-23 13:31:44
At 01:26 PM 4/23/2012, Andy Bierman wrote:
On 04/23/2012 10:13 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:


At 12:22 PM 4/23/2012, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 4/23/12 6:58 AM, Scott O Bradner wrote:
see rfc 2418 - they are to keep a record as who is taking part in a WG's 
activities
keeping track of attendees is a basic part of any standards development 
organization's process

The tension here appears to be between transparency of process and an
individual right to privacy.  I think that the IETF has a considerable
stake in the former, not just because of the frequency with which some
little pisher or other threatens to sue over what they perceive to be
trust/collusion issues, but because openness is an IETF institutional
value.  I think it should continue to be.  I understand the privacy
issues (although I won't necessary lump them as an instance of revealing
PII) but tend to think that the information being revealed is pretty
sparse and the privacy concerns here probably aren't substantial enough
to counterbalance the organizational interest in keeping processes as
open as possible.

Melinda


And to put a further point on it - the last sentence of the "NOTE WELL" 
notice (http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html) that applies to each and 
every IETF meeting and working group session and IETF activity is very clear 
that written, audio and video records can and will be kept.  A person 
attending an IETF meeting has no reasonable expectation of privacy for those 
things we define as "IETF activities".

So if someone demands "privacy", the price is non-participation in the IETF.

Not exactly -- the NOTE WELL applies to contributions.
Is just showing up and observing the meeting considered a contribution?

The NOTE WELL implicates any "statements", oral, written or electronic as well 
as "submissions".

The last sentence of the NOTE WELL says "A participant in any IETF activity 
acknowledges that written, audio and video records of meetings may be made and 
may be available to the public." - and that puts paid to the concept that an 
attendee has a "privacy" expectation during the meeting.



Personally, I don't think the blue sheets should even be filled out,
let alone published.  The WG chairs can convey the meeting room size 
requirements
without passing around clipboards and (hopefully) everybody writing down their 
name.

There is no correlation between the blue sheets and IETF contributions.
I don't see what purpose they serve anymore.


AFAIK, you're not a patent troll.  I have met them during IETF meetings.  One 
of my RFC's was patented - without my knowledge or consent.  (cf  RFC2786 vs US 
Patent No. 7290142)  Fortunately, the record was clear that the RFC and the 
drafts preceded the applicants "spark".  However, it might have been more 
interesting had there been need to a) prove when the first public disclosure 
was made and b) implicate a specific person, company or entity in being present 
when that disclosure was made.  Hence the blue sheets.

So they do serve a purpose.

Mike



Mike


Andy