In this activity, the participants in the OGM calls from now on need to be identified. Where missing, unclear or unknown, a few unique/disambiguatable details about their person need to be researched (usually name should be enough). To aid the former, existing lists of people need to be determined and consulted. Then, unique, technical, internal identifiers would be assigned/issued for each participant in a global, all-time “master” list/directory, which then allows the referencing between the main table and attendees of a particular, single call. The unique technical identifier is supposed to later help with attaching profile data to it, or augment mentions in a transcript/summary.
This list should only include individuals who participated in a call of which the recording was published, if they also said something or “appeared”. Everybody gets a veto right to be excluded, removed, whitelisted. None of the data should be personal or sensible, other than what’s publicly shared or otherwise publicly known anyway. Everybody gets the right to be represented in the way preferred, which can also be pseudonymous or anonymous, as long as it’s within fair, reasonable limits and not abused (for example, to promote products as the “name” of a natural person or attempts of identity hijacking). It can remain the case that some details (like legal given name) are retained internally if necessary/useful for administrative reasons, only held by OGM and not publicly shared, while the publicly shared entry/representation can be something else, and the connection is maintained via the unique technical identifier (resolved via some lookup/mapping).
This should also involve and invite anybody who wants to help designing proper/better handling of privacy/confidentiality and data protection. The experiment and activity are supposed to be very open and transparent about decisions and concept on request, and remain open for later review + change at any time as long as this data compilation remains in use.
OK, this is just a proposal, no need to freak out, can be scrapped/rejected easily, but on the other hand offers a way of exploring these kind of questions practically and for later use cases. No intention at all to hurt or misrepresent anybody, while on the other hand hinting at what’s publicly shared already or voluntarily disclosed to big data gathering + exploitation companies anyway. So before this project actually starts practically, would love to get some opinions, feedback, ideas first, could also be discussed on a more broader, conceptual level, especially how it relates to the names and people Jerry entered and cross-referenced in his brain.