During the IESG discussion of this thread, we recognized the quality of the information on the blue sheets. This point was made very clearly at the open mic discussion at the plenary and on the mail list.
Some people voiced agreement with your position, and others supported the posting of this information. As I said in my earlier message, the consensus is quite rough. By my review of the thread, which was made more difficult by the many off-topic postings, there is rough consensus for the inclusion of blue sheet information in the proceedings. Russ On May 6, 2012, at 10:04 PM, David Morris wrote: > > I consider that there is a significant difference between the information > provided in the registered attendee list and the individual blue sheets: > > a) to the extent that the information on the blue sheet is valid, it > provides an hour by hour log of location, the overall list of attendees at > most indicates an individual was present to pick up their badge at some > point during the meeting. > b) the validity of the list of registered attendees has a higher degree > of probable validity because of the requirement for a significant payment > and the processes required to process that payment. > c) Individual blue sheets can suffer from any number of unintentional and > intentional issues which limit their factual validity but not the mischief > which can be caused by their easy online access. > d) Scanning and publication imports a validity to the data which is not > widely accepted by the community. > > David Morris > > On Sun, 6 May 2012, IETF Chair wrote: > >> David: >> >> The list of participants and their addresses are already part of the >> proceedings. The incremental difference shows which participants signed in >> at each session. >> >> Russ >> >> >> >> On May 6, 2012, at 7:03 PM, David Morris wrote: >> >>> >>> From my following of the topic, that concensus was really rough, in >>> particular the part about publishing the scans on-line. That represents >>> a significant difference in ease access which I think required more than >>> the very very rough concensus you seem to think you found. >>> >>> On Sun, 6 May 2012, IETF Chair wrote: >>> >>>> We have heard from many community participants, and consensus is quite >>>> rough on this topic. The IESG discussed this thread and reached two >>>> conclusions: >>>> >>>> (1) Rough consensus: an open and transparent standards process is more >>>> important to the IETF than privacy of blue sheet information. >>>> >>>> (2) Rough consensus: inclusion of email addresses is a good way to >>>> distinguish participants with the same or similar names. >>>> >>>> >>>> Based on these conclusions, the plan is to handle blue sheets as follows: >>>> >>>> - Continue to collect email addresses on blue sheets; >>>> >>>> - Scan the blue sheet and include the image in the proceedings for the WG >>>> session; >>>> >>>> - Add indication to top of the blue sheet so people know it will be part >>>> of the proceedings; and >>>> >>>> - Discard paper blue sheets after scanning. >>>> >>>> >>>> On behalf of the IESG, >>>> Russ >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
