Re: "Blue sheets" [ Interim meetings - changing the way we work]

Lou Berger <> Thu, 26 February 2015 11:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C7871A7013 for <>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 03:58:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lxjjvVUQ26Tb for <>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 03:58:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id D66961A6FE7 for <>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 03:58:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 11671 invoked by uid 0); 26 Feb 2015 11:58:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw2) ( by with SMTP; 26 Feb 2015 11:58:18 -0000
Received: from ([]) by cmgw2 with id wzy61p00V2SSUrH01zy9pK; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 04:58:17 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=bJKFfpOZ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=mlFM_a_ONtUA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=0HtSIViG9nkA:10 a=AZEhrcTtAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=pkuhyDRL3btVq3Z-uAAA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=K_QJieY1_TUA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=Xu1EKH47EwYWJyDuBxoPtrN2W1skT4ln7t1vekPjUak=; b=ug9D1N1SP01kYeKtbrsqNRlNXyrsXnQ5WpiTVE4esJuIV26tlpkhqR2q+nfm25AcCLK6ZppgfKE64CESqJVS14sBcjTgC7PL/xttwzSYbjpuzMAzelcns6dwsnbm2w0W;
Received: from ([]:42431 helo=[]) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <>) id 1YQx4x-0006FG-AO; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 04:58:07 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 06:57:59 -0500
From: Lou Berger <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "t.p." <>
Subject: Re: "Blue sheets" [ Interim meetings - changing the way we work]
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <007301d04927$64890d40$> <> <01c701d050f6$c80fcd00$> <> <> <> <025601d051ac$1510ed40$>
In-Reply-To: <025601d051ac$1510ed40$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Identified-User: {} {sentby:smtp auth authed with}
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:58:27 -0000

    I think you got it exactly right.  See below.

On 2/26/2015 5:07 AM, t.p. wrote:
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "Benson Schliesser" <>
> To: "Brian E Carpenter" <>
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:53 AM
>> 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
>> says the
>> attendee list "must" be submitted. And I'm happy to follow that
> guidance.
>> Of course, chairs being required to submit blue sheets is not the same
>> as attendees being required to sign them.
>> 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.
> I see two related requirements.  One is 'Blue Sheets', the desire to
> have a complete record of participants, perhaps for IPR reasons, but
> that was not the  one that triggered my initial post.

Certainly all are asked to sign the blue sheet, but if someone chooses
not to, it's never been policy to "out them", i.e., record their
presence without their consent.  I think this is no less true for
interims than for physical meetings.  Also, just like for Jabber, I do
think the name one uses when they enter a webex should be fair game (and

> Rather, what drives me is the increased difficulty of knowing what is
> going on if all one has to go on is the WG e-mail list (changing the way
> we work).  Contributions from unidentified or unidentifiable people at a
> virtual interim is a part of this (perhaps giving a sense that the WG is
> becoming more of a closed shop and if you do not participate in these
> many virtual interims, then you can no longer be part of things).
> So whether or not there is a public 'Blue Sheet' for an interim,
> recording all those who 'dialled in', whether or not they remained
> silent thereafter, I think there should be an identifier associated with
> contributions as recorded in the minutes.  If you are there, you will
> likely know who 'Tom' is (Nadeau, Ritter, Thorogood, Taylor, Sanders,
> ...).  After all, at physical meetings the chairs frequently ask
> speakers at the mike to identify themselves and this is then recorded in
> the minutes.

This really is the important point.  For transparency and probably IPR
traceability, but I'm not a lawyer, the minutes need to reflect full
names of anyone contributing/speaking in the session. 

I may be mistaken, but don't recall seeing this stated as a requirement
in any RFC -- it probably should be.

> I believe we need the same, probably more so, for virtual interims.  As
> I mentioned before, netmod and netconf WGs manage it, I would like
> others to do the same.

100% agreed.


> Tom Petch
>> Cheers,
>> -Benson