I don't have an objection to this data being collected, only
to it being made public without a good reason.
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of ext Yoav Nir
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 11:02 AM
To: Avri Doria
Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
On Apr 24, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
In reading this thread several thoughts have come to mind:
- for several years I have not been able to attend an IETF mtg in
person, yet always
join in some of the sessions remotely. Is our remote attendance
recorded as well, or
its it only in the chat archive? I have noticed that not all of us
give our real names
when we sign in (I generally do but that is beside the point.) This
would also apply to
those who are at the physical mtg but who time share between sessions.
The handles usually map somehow to names, but only people who know
would know who "PHB", "MCR", "SM", and "fluffy" are. This also extends
minutes. You often see things like "Paul said this, Phil said that,
Yoav agreed with Paul,
Peter said to take it to the list". Within the old boys' club of the
working group, most
people know who these people are. Looking at the attendee list, you
can pretty much
determine who Yoav is (there's only one), but there's plenty of Pauls,
Phils and Peters.
- when I used to come to the physical meetings, I often noticed
people who came to
the mtg who did not sign the blue / pink sheets. And does everyone who
comes in late
actually find the sheet and sign it?
I would say that usually they don't sign them
- does everyone sign their real name? do we know if anyone has ever
name of someone else? How often has Minnie Mouse attended an IETF WG
I've seen at least "PHB" on a blue sheet. I also see a lot of
scribbles, that may or may
not have been an honest attempt at writing the name legibly.
- I thought the comment about taking pictures to record the
identities of those who
read documents was interesting. For those who are recognizable this
its indeed a good
record, but what about for others? Also a statement was made that no
complain about this because of the note well - but that only
references "written, audio
and video records of meetings may be made and may be available to the
nothing about still photography. Perhaps the video feature of the
phone should be used
in the future.
So it seems that the records are probably partial, and unreliable.
They are also not
verified. Are they really useful?
They are not reliable, and they provide as much accountability as
those signatures at
the end of emails ("the contents are confidential...") provide
In thinking about why such records are kept, I sort of understand
the various IPR
reasons, but wonder, whether given the unreliability of the
information, it really would
be accepted as evidence. Has ever ever been a case where these blue
were accepted as evidence?
If not, are there other good reasons for the blue sheets? I mean
they are a quaint
historical relic and that has value for any organization, but is there
a function they
I think not, but then again, I don't have an objection to this data
being collected, only
to it being made public without a good reason. Stephan has provided an
misuse, in "for example verifying statements found in resumes". It is
not the job of
the IETF to keep its participants honest to future employers.