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

t.p. <daedulus@btconnect.com> Fri, 27 February 2015 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <daedulus@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B7E1ACCE3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:09:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PgNNqC1COQta for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:09:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0731.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::731]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 240021A0262 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:09:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pc6 (81.151.167.59) by DB4PR07MB252.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.231.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.93.16; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:09:06 +0000
Message-ID: <00b001d0529f$0c1ab920$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: t.p. <daedulus@btconnect.com>
To: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <6025.1423672358@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwYtE618sA99hgXP-5wk+BYdcXLbiZqd_36OreYQ1LB7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <732CCD31-0F13-472F-9825-C5F5D650C41B@vigilsec.com> <2457EE06-4960-40B5-AF10-2EDFBF18B2B6@nominum.com> <7C601AA4-55C4-43FE-B2FE-1D22BD73F166@vigilsec.com> <CAKHUCzyJ62hVyJVVLuL5-nXx_i5VO2cW3LA6R1sdZbDHxoY_Tw@mail.gmail.com> <43ADF7ED-6A42-4097-8FFA-5DA0FC21D07A@vigilsec.com> <CAKHUCzyfB+GhNqmDhrzki4tVn0faMLyt_cqgeHFcQL2b5pkkAQ@mail.gmail.com> <54DE3E1C.6060105@gmail.com> <007301d04927$64890d40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <54EDA697.5070107@cisco.com> <01c701d050f6$c80fcd00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <54EE0E9A.2060002@queuefull.net> <54EE75E1.1030009@gmail.com> <54EEA6AD.3000606@queuefull.net> <710C7275-6726-435D-A003-B5AE567C93EF@gmail.com> <54EF7423.4070202@queuefull.net>
Subject: Re: "Blue sheets" [ Interim meetings - changing the way we work]
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:44:19 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Originating-IP: [81.151.167.59]
X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPR02CA0028.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.242.225.156) To DB4PR07MB252.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.231.153)
Authentication-Results: queuefull.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR07MB252;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <DB4PR07MB2520ED4858523B41D1F9AF8E8150@DB4PR07MB252.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006); SRVR:DB4PR07MB252;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 05009853EF
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(13464003)(51704005)(377454003)(24454002)(243025005)(23676002)(93886004)(50226001)(86362001)(81816999)(76176999)(50986999)(87976001)(46102003)(122386002)(61296003)(42186005)(19580395003)(19580405001)(44716002)(47776003)(50466002)(66066001)(77096005)(14496001)(92566002)(15975445007)(33646002)(62966003)(1456003)(40100003)(77156002)(74416001)(7726001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB4PR07MB252; H:pc6; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR07MB252;
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2015 15:09:06.6736 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB4PR07MB252
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Z3wWSZ-l_5uX2z2YVMvSrkA3A_g>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:09:28 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Benson Schliesser" <bensons@queuefull.net>
To: "Yoav Nir" <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 7:29 PM
>
> Yoav Nir wrote:
> >> On Feb 26, 2015, at 6:53 AM, Benson
Schliesser<bensons@queuefull.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@ietf.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