For what it is worth, here is my opinion on this subject (which I was
asked to post here).
I see possible privacy law problems with posting the blue sheets, so
I would not.
I see a good reason to scan and have images of new blue sheets, make
it easier to respond to subpoenas.
I do see a historical benefit to keeping the blue sheets (as blue
sheets, not just scans), and the expense
of doing so is minimal, so I would urge that their archiving be continued.
Regards
Marshall
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
Hi John,
At 11:31 10-05-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
participate in any way in an affected WG. I hate the idea of
the community getting embroiled in accusations and
counter-accusations but one advantage to a working IPR policy
(as well as general openness) of publishing the blue sheets is
I am fine either way with the handling of the blue sheets. I am also fine
with whatever the IESG decides (on this topic only :-)). This topic has
been sold as a matter of openness. The question can be traced back to
newspaperization. In those days, propagation of information was localized.
Nowadays, it can be globalized. That can be good; it can also be bad.
The scrawls from the blue sheets will be accessible after around a month.
Should the world be able to find out that:
(i) you were in Paris
(ii) you attended the EAI session
Now let's assume that the work is covered by one of your inventions.
Although you were in that session according to the blue sheets, you did not
participate in the discussion according to the minutes (the analogy is that
you are subscribed to the mailing list but you have not posted any
messages). Do you have to file an IPR disclosure?
Coming back to being open and transparent, the IETF tends to have a variable
stance on that. Exposing information allows other people to evaluate
fairness, whether there is conflict of interest, etc. It does not always
work out well; some people may be unhappy, offended or uncomfortable. If
you look at the list of WGs being tracked, you will notice that some people
provided the information, some didn't. I didn't ask why. As a quick
thought, I guess that people are uneasy with the idea of the information
being publicized to the world or they used the default, this information is
not relevant to any random person.
Let's ignore the IPR argument. What question(s) should one ask in setting
the boundaries for open and transparent?
Regards,
-sm