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
