Dear Russ,
please forgive me for adding one more comment on that after you judged
on rough consensus.
As you said this rough consensus is quite rough (if we may call it
"rough consensus").
I would like to point out two things:
1. the statement "(1) Rough consensus: an open and transparent standards
process is more important to the IETF than privacy of blue sheet
information." puts transparent process in competition with privacy. This
is misleading, because there is no contradiction between an open and
transparent process and privacy of personal information on this one. For
example the availability of blue sheet information on request by an
authenticated person does allow full transparency without broadcasting
the personal location information. (e.g. see also Ted's proposal from
yesterday)
(Furthermore, if I would be devil's advocate, I would question this
comparison even further, because it could be misread as stating that the
current standards process as it is today (with blue sheets on request)
is not open or transparent...)
2. if consensus is so rough, we should also consider that the subject of
the email discussion was maybe not clear enough about its impact to
inform the audience of the consequences of the discussion and the
consensus to be measured. We could equally have used a subject like
this: "IETF wants to publish your specific locations / whereabouts
(within 10m) on an 2-hourly basis during the day for each meeting and
keep this information available published on the website indefinitely."
It might have resulted in a different rough consensus.
Just my 5cents.
Best regards, Tobias
On 07/05/12 23:02, IETF Chair wrote:
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
