RE: Blue Sheet Change Proposal

I thought it was for the same reasons that Scott suggested, to tell
who was in the room and the emails served the purpose for handling
consensus calls on the list, and ensuring any 'nasty' IPR supprises as
well.

John 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org 
>[mailto:wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Scott O. Bradner
>Sent: 04 April, 2008 03:10
>To: ietf@ietf.org; wgchairs@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
>
>
>Ole guessed
>> My understanding is that the blue sheet serves mainly as a record of 
>> "who was in the room" which I think is largely used to plan room 
>> capacities for the next meeting.
>
>the "blue sheets" are required as part of the basic openness 
>process in a standards organization - there is a need to know 
>"who is in the room" (see RFC 2418 section 3.1 for the actual
>requirement)
>
>the blue sheets become part of the formal record of the 
>standards process and can be retrieved if needed (e.g. in a 
>lawsuit) but are not generally made available 
>
>as pointed out by Mark Andrews - email addresses can be useful 
>in determining the actual identity of the person who scrawled 
>their name on the sheet - so it is an advantage to retain them
>
>I'm trying to understand how the blue sheets contribute in any 
>significant way to the spam problem - someone whould have to 
>be surreptitiously copying  them or quickly writing down the 
>email addresses - both could happen but do not seem to be all 
>that likely there are far more efficient ways to grab email addresses
>
>so, my question is "is this a problem that needs solving"?
>
>Scott
>
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf