|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
I agree with you. I've always been puzzled as to why anyone needs to know who specifically attended a meeting. What is that information used for later? As far as I can, no one ever has gone back to associate email addresses with speakers at the mic, actual attendee lists or presentations or something. Isn't the point just to gauge how full the room was so that we can book an appropriately sized room for the next meeting? If that is the case, then just having the chairs take a rough estimate of how many people attended (or even just state a percentage of occupied seats) should suffice, right? --Tom On Apr 23, 2012:1:13 AM, at 1:13 AM, Kireeti Kompella wrote: > On Apr 23, 2012, at 0:05, "EXT - joelja@xxxxxxxxx" <joelja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > (quoting from RFC 2418) > >> All working group sessions (including those held outside of the IETF >> meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available. These >> minutes should include the agenda for the session, an account of the >> discussion including any decisions made, and a list of attendees. > > RFCs are not gospel. They can, and, in this instance, should, be changed: either remove that last item, or stately explicitly that there is no expectation of privacy at IETF meetings. (I have a sinking feeling I know which way that will go.) > > Why shouldn't getting the list of a meeting's attendees require a subpoena? The cost argument is bogus; equally, there are those who think going to a judge for permission to wiretap is a waste of time and money. > > Put the money you save on NOT installing RFID kit into a fund for handling subpoenas (only half joking). > > Kireeti > > PS: Yoav, regarding your remarks on street surveillance, from the IETF Note Well: > > "A participant in any IETF activity acknowledges that written, audio and video records of meetings may be made and may be available to the public." > > A camera over meeting room doorways is next.