ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

2012-05-10 13:25:38

On May 10, 2012, at 8:42 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:

On 5/10/12 9:32 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
There has never been a need to actively broadcast these massive amounts
of personally identifiable information (PII), and I haven't seen any
convincing rationale for doing it now.

To be honest, "I don't want to receive more spam" and "My boss might
find out I skipped a session" are not reasons not to be open about
who's participating in sessions, particularly as we drift towards a
meetings/voting model.

Participating is one thing. Presence is another. Reporting that I spoke up 
against the hard-fail requirement at Websec is part of the openness. Reporting 
that I was at SCIM, where I never once approached the microphone is not.

 I understand sensitivity about broadcasting
travel plans but in general some of the arguments being offered for
being a less open organization with a less open process are drifting
into "The FBI implanted a radio transmitter in my teeth" territory,
and it seems to me that making blue sheets available after meetings
does not reveal much PII beyond what's already available on the mailing
lists.

The FBI needn't bother. They can just read the blue sheets :-)

There's a serious question here about tradeoffs between privacy and
openness.  Openness is not just a core institutional value (although
it is one - do not forget that), but it's also a defense against
charges of collusion, which, unfortunately, we've been seeing.

And how does the existence of such a lame attempt to list attendees help in 
this?

Yoav