On Apr 24, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In reading this thread several thoughts have come to mind:
>
> - for several years I have not been able to attend an IETF mtg in person, yet always join in some of the sessions remotely. Is our remote attendance recorded as well, or its it only in the chat archive? I have noticed that not all of us give our real names when we sign in (I generally do but that is beside the point.) This would also apply to those who are at the physical mtg but who time share between sessions.
The handles usually map somehow to names, but only people who know them well would know who "PHB", "MCR", "SM", and "fluffy" are. This also extends to the minutes. You often see things like "Paul said this, Phil said that, Yoav agreed with Paul, Peter said to take it to the list". Within the old boys' club of the working group, most people know who these people are. Looking at the attendee list, you can pretty much determine who Yoav is (there's only one), but there's plenty of Pauls, Phils and Peters.
> - when I used to come to the physical meetings, I often noticed people who came to the mtg who did not sign the blue / pink sheets. And does everyone who comes in late actually find the sheet and sign it?
I would say that usually they don't sign them
> - does everyone sign their real name? do we know if anyone has ever signed the name of someone else? How often has Minnie Mouse attended an IETF WG mtg.
I've seen at least "PHB" on a blue sheet. I also see a lot of scribbles, that may or may not have been an honest attempt at writing the name legibly.
> - I thought the comment about taking pictures to record the identities of those who read documents was interesting. For those who are recognizable this its indeed a good record, but what about for others? Also a statement was made that no one could complain about this because of the note well - but that only references "written, audio and video records of meetings may be made and may be available to the public" - nothing about still photography. Perhaps the video feature of the phone should be used in the future.
>
> So it seems that the records are probably partial, and unreliable. They are also not verified. Are they really useful?
They are not reliable, and they provide as much accountability as those signatures at the end of emails ("the contents are confidential…") provide confidentiality.
> In thinking about why such records are kept, I sort of understand the various IPR reasons, but wonder, whether given the unreliability of the information, it really would be accepted as evidence. Has ever ever been a case where these blue sheet records were accepted as evidence?
>
> If not, are there other good reasons for the blue sheets? I mean they are a quaint historical relic and that has value for any organization, but is there a function they reliably serve?
I think not, but then again, I don't have an objection to this data being collected, only to it being made public without a good reason. Stephan has provided an example for misuse, in "for example verifying statements found in resumes". It is not the job of the IETF to keep its participants honest to future employers.
Yoav