John,
sorry, maybe I did not articulate myself precisely enough. I did not
intend to say it would be published in real-time. What I wanted to
communicate is that we would collect that data only during daytime and
only with 2hours-granularity as it's only meeting attendance in which
room you are (and publish it at any point in time later). However, we
would keep it public indefinitely (in the proceedings).
Like you, I am very cautious about broadcasting my travel plans. Plus, I
am not only concerned about in advance and real-time, but also about
broadcasting to the public places I've been in the past (or for that
matter any personal information).
Best regards, Tobias
On 10/05/12 15:09, John C Klensin wrote:
(top post)
Tobias,
Constructing and then attacking strawmen is not helpful.
As far as I know, no one has proposed making blue sheet
information --and hence precise location information for
identified individuals-- available to the public in real time
during the meetings. As one of, I assume, many members of this
community who will not broadcast my travel plans to social
networks, etc., until after I return home, I would strenuously
object to any such thing but, again, as far as I know, no one
proposed it.
john
--On Thursday, May 10, 2012 14:23 +0800 Tobias Gondrom
<tobias.gond...@gondrom.org> wrote:
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.