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 <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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