ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

2012-04-25 17:06:55
I would strongly support what Wes is talking about here.  I see two (other) 
reasons for keeping blue sheets.  The first is it is a recognized method of 
showing we have an open standards process.  The second is to support those who 
are trying to defend themselves in patent suits.  Frankly, I hope the IETF 
makes it hard for those who want to abuse the IETF process to get patents or 
ignore prior art and then come after the industry for undeserved royalties.

For the former purpose, just having a list is sufficient. However, for the 
latter purpose, one needs records that would be admissible in court. Without 
eating our dog food and having some sort of audited digital signature 
technology, a simple scan will not do.

On Apr 23, 2012, at 10:04 AM, George, Wes wrote:

From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of IETF
Chair
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 10:31 AM
To: IETF
Subject: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

2.  Scan the blue sheet and include the image in the proceedings for the WG
session; and
3.  Discard paper blue sheets after scanning.

[WEG] Based on some other messages in this thread, there seems to be a lack 
of clarity as to the full, official purpose of the blue sheets. Are they 
simply to track generic participation levels for room sizing, or are they 
also meant as a historical record of attendees to a given WG? It seems that 
if they are being subpoenaed, and they are archived today, I tend to think 
that they're meant to officially track attendees. I'd appreciate someone 
correcting me if I'm wrong.

If blue sheets are meant to be an official record, then technically we should 
document handling/scanning/storage procedures for WG chairs and the 
secretariat such that this scan will be admissible in lieu of a paper copy 
for any subpoena or other court proceeding. But if we're honest, I'm not sure 
that they're of much use as an official record either way. Do we have 
procedures today that would prevent tampering before the paper copy ends up 
in an archive box? And even then, blue sheets and jabber logs (for remote 
participants) are still ultimately a best-effort honor system, and therefore 
there is no guarantee of their validity. I can remotely participate without 
registering for the meeting, and can sign into Jabber as "Mickey Mouse" just 
as easily as I can sign the blue sheet that way. I can also sign as "Randy 
Bush" or sign my own name completely illegibly.

Could we simply do a headcount for room sizing, and treat the matter of 
official attendee record for WG meetings as a separate problem? IMO, it's not 
currently solved by the blue sheets, and I don't see that changing just 
because we dispense with the paper copies in a box in a warehouse.

Thanks
Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable 
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to 
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the 
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be 
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender 
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail 
and any printout.