Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

[SM <[e-mail]>]

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