there you go, defeating the real purpose of these threads.
stop trying to be practical.
d/
ps. whither? i'm staying at the van der valk hotel.
On 7/24/2010 8:13 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
How about if we ONLY had a privacy policy which pertained to the data
we have to collect in order to regis
How about if we ONLY had a privacy policy which pertained to the data
we have to collect in order to register people for our meetings? It
seems reasonable to have a statement that says we (the secretariat or
its agents) will only use the info as needed to process payments etc,
will not use the da
The IETF has a legal home, named ISOC. Let me rephrase: "Do you think ISOC is
not subject to the laws of Europe?"
Good grief.
On Jul 22, 2010, at 12:33 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> You appear to be concerned about exposing the IETF to risk by the
>> adoption of a privacy policy (but apologies i
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 06:30:24AM +0200, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> We should stop talking about this topic as if we were lawyers and start
> talking as if we cared about how agents of the IETF handle sensitive
> information. That is what I understand the practical purpose of a
> privacy policy to
On 7/24/2010 6:11 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I am not personally convinced that another policy is a good idea,
especially if it has no practical consequences;
At this point, I'd go further and say /specifically/ if it has no practical
consequences.
To the point:
A 'policy' does not mean
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:59:49PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> I must admit that I am not following this. What organization are you
> talking about ?
> ISOC ? The IETF Trust ? Something else ?
The analogy coming from those arguing for the privacy policy has been,
in part, "The IETF should h
On Jul 23, 2010, at 11:27 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 05:22:26PM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
We certainly live with some complicated arrangements...
Without wishing to weigh in on whether the privacy policy is a good
idea, I think that "living with" was an important pa
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 05:22:26PM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> We certainly live with some complicated arrangements...
Without wishing to weigh in on whether the privacy policy is a good
idea, I think that "living with" was an important part of John
Levine's argument up-thread. In many cases,
-Original Message-
From: NomCom Chair [mailto:nomcom-ch...@ietf.org]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 7:48 PM
To: IETF Announcement list
Subject: Nomcom 2010-2011: Final List of Nomcom Members
Hi Folks,
All of the Voting Members chosen by the random selection have been
contacted and confir
Sorry, I haven't yet had a chance to review the feedback that's been
provided during this Last Call. I'll do that en route to Maastricht
today. Next week Jeff and I will discuss in person the points that have
been raised, and then we'll post further regarding our proposed changes
to the spec.
Pete
Total of 138 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jul 23 08:13:28 EDT 2010
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
7.25% | 10 | 9.10% |81462 | hal...@gmail.com
5.07% |7 | 5.50% |49208 | tglas...@earthli
Thanks for the warning. I just arrived in Maastricht (via train from Brussels),
and I did notice quite a few people, mostly middle aged men, standing around
looking idle in places where you would not expect people waiting for trains to
stand.
Your warning might very well have saved me or other
12 matches
Mail list logo
