Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

[Martin Rex <[e-mail]>]

John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 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
> the ability to notice and send reminder notes of the form of
> "hey, I think I say you in WG FooBar and you've mentioned that
> your company is doing work in the area, did you accidentally
> forget to sign the blue sheet".   Of course, that means there is
> one missing part of the current IESG picture and that is the
> ability of people to add their names (perhaps as errata) to the
> published blue sheets if an omission was unintentional.


I think this blowing the issue out of proportion.

Do you want to require anyone listening to the audio stream
from the IETF Meeting (realtime or from the archive) to sign
up with name first and append it to the blue sheet?

I attended a few IETF meetings in person during 1995-1998 plus
one in 2000 and since then I've only been remotely participating
if at all.  While I did go to the meetings of WGs I actively
participated & signed the blue sheets there, I attended several
other WG meetings.  In case I attended primarily out of curiosity,
I sometimes came late, sometimes left early, and rarely signed
blue sheets.  The idea behind this is "cross-pollination",
something that the ADs of the security area had been actively
advocating for.

If the IESG decides it wants to publish the blue sheets, that may
result in attendees to deliberately not sign it or sign with fake
data, which may impair the usefulness of the blue sheets.


-Martin