I thought it was for the same reasons that Scott suggested, to tell
who was in the room and the emails served the purpose for handling
consensus calls on the list, and ensuring any 'nasty' IPR supprises as
well.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: wgchairs-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:wgchairs-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of ext Scott O. Bradner
Sent: 04 April, 2008 03:10
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; wgchairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
Ole guessed
My understanding is that the blue sheet serves mainly as a record of
"who was in the room" which I think is largely used to plan room
capacities for the next meeting.
the "blue sheets" are required as part of the basic openness
process in a standards organization - there is a need to know
"who is in the room" (see RFC 2418 section 3.1 for the actual
requirement)
the blue sheets become part of the formal record of the
standards process and can be retrieved if needed (e.g. in a
lawsuit) but are not generally made available
as pointed out by Mark Andrews - email addresses can be useful
in determining the actual identity of the person who scrawled
their name on the sheet - so it is an advantage to retain them
I'm trying to understand how the blue sheets contribute in any
significant way to the spam problem - someone whould have to
be surreptitiously copying them or quickly writing down the
email addresses - both could happen but do not seem to be all
that likely there are far more efficient ways to grab email addresses
so, my question is "is this a problem that needs solving"?
Scott
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf