----- Original Message -----
From: "Benson Schliesser" <bensons(_at_)queuefull(_dot_)net>
To: "Yoav Nir" <ynir(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 7:29 PM
Yoav Nir wrote:
On Feb 26, 2015, at 6:53 AM, Benson
Schliesser<bensons(_at_)queuefull(_dot_)net> wrote:
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?
This *feels* like it should be true. But I can't find any definitive
statement that requires attendees to sign blue sheets. Maybe I'm just
overlooking it?
Benson
As Brian pointed out earlier, RFC2418 makes the reporting of attendees a
'should'. The most recent IESG statement
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html
says
"The minutes, including a list of attendees, must be sent to
proceedings(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org within 10 days after the meeting, conference
call
or jabber session concludes."
I note the 'must'.
And there is a webpage
http://www.ietf.org/documents/interim-meeting-blue-sheet-f2f.pdf
although there is no statement as to whether the use of this document is
a must, should, or something else! So in terms of participants signing,
I do not see a requirement, but in terms of participants being reported,
I do. And I would link this to 'Note Well' which warns participants
that their participation may be a matter of public record and so
whatever technology is used for a virtual interim, it should ensure that
participants see the 'Note Well' in some form.
And I would like to see that '10 days' modified, to be either 10 days or
three days prior to the next meeting to cover the case I see of weekly
meetings, when 10 days later is too late IMO.
Tom Petch
Cheers,
-Benson