I would strongly support what Wes is talking about here. I see two (other) reasons for keeping blue sheets. The first is it is a recognized method of showing we have an open standards process. The second is to support those who are trying to defend themselves in patent suits. Frankly, I hope the IETF makes it hard for those who want to abuse the IETF process to get patents or ignore prior art and then come after the industry for undeserved royalties. For the former purpose, just having a list is sufficient. However, for the latter purpose, one needs records that would be admissible in court. Without eating our dog food and having some sort of audited digital signature technology, a simple scan will not do. On Apr 23, 2012, at 10:04 AM, George, Wes wrote: >> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of IETF >> Chair >> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 10:31 AM >> To: IETF >> Subject: Future Handling of Blue Sheets >> >> 2. Scan the blue sheet and include the image in the proceedings for the WG >> session; and >> 3. Discard paper blue sheets after scanning. > > [WEG] Based on some other messages in this thread, there seems to be a lack of clarity as to the full, official purpose of the blue sheets. Are they simply to track generic participation levels for room sizing, or are they also meant as a historical record of attendees to a given WG? It seems that if they are being subpoenaed, and they are archived today, I tend to think that they're meant to officially track attendees. I'd appreciate someone correcting me if I'm wrong. > > If blue sheets are meant to be an official record, then technically we should document handling/scanning/storage procedures for WG chairs and the secretariat such that this scan will be admissible in lieu of a paper copy for any subpoena or other court proceeding. But if we're honest, I'm not sure that they're of much use as an official record either way. Do we have procedures today that would prevent tampering before the paper copy ends up in an archive box? And even then, blue sheets and jabber logs (for remote participants) are still ultimately a best-effort honor system, and therefore there is no guarantee of their validity. I can remotely participate without registering for the meeting, and can sign into Jabber as "Mickey Mouse" just as easily as I can sign the blue sheet that way. I can also sign as "Randy Bush" or sign my own name completely illegibly. > > Could we simply do a headcount for room sizing, and treat the matter of official attendee record for WG meetings as a separate problem? IMO, it's not currently solved by the blue sheets, and I don't see that changing just because we dispense with the paper copies in a box in a warehouse. > > Thanks > Wes George > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.