On Feb 26, 2015, at 6:53 AM, Benson Schliesser
<bensons(_at_)queuefull(_dot_)net> wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
According to BCP 25 (RFC 2418) minutes are mandatory ("shall") and the
list of attendees is a lower-case "should":
...
Personally I think it should have been a MUST because of verifying
IPR disclosure obligations.
It's worth noting that the IESG guidance at
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html says the attendee
list "must" be submitted. And I'm happy to follow that guidance.
I had always been told that blue sheets are required for legal reasons so that
attendees cannot claim to not having been present where potentially encumbered
technology was discussed.
If this is a legal requirements, why would it not apply to interim meetings?
Of course, chairs being required to submit blue sheets is not the same as
attendees being required to sign them.
They’re required to sign them in physical meetings. How are virtual interims
different?
On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be any reason why a chair would be
prohibited from collecting names for the blue sheets in whatever way is most
convenient. (E.g. WebEx logs for virtual interim meetings) If that conflicts
with an attendee's desire to avoid signing the blue sheets, then I suppose
the chair's prerogative takes precedence.
Depending on the tool, the logs may contain “screen names” that are difficult
or impossible to relate to real people. If we mean to require this, we should
do this in a more elaborate way. I don’t mean that we need to add strong
authentication, but something like a roll call where everyone says who they are
would be good.
Yoav