Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

[Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>]

For what it is worth, here is my opinion on this subject (which I was
asked to post here).

I see  possible privacy law problems with posting the blue sheets, so
I would not.

I see a good reason to scan and have images of new blue sheets, make
it easier to respond to subpoenas.

I do see a historical benefit to keeping the blue sheets (as blue
sheets, not just scans), and the expense
of doing so is minimal, so I would urge that their archiving be continued.

Regards
Marshall

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM, SM <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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