----- Original Message ----- From: "Benson Schliesser" <bensons@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Yoav Nir" <ynir.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 7:29 PM > > Yoav Nir wrote: > >> On Feb 26, 2015, at 6:53 AM, Benson Schliesser<bensons@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Of course, chairs being required to submit blue sheets is not the same as attendees being required to sign them. > > > > They’re required to sign them in physical meetings. How are virtual interims different? > > This *feels* like it should be true. But I can't find any definitive > statement that requires attendees to sign blue sheets. Maybe I'm just > overlooking it? Benson As Brian pointed out earlier, RFC2418 makes the reporting of attendees a 'should'. The most recent IESG statement http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html says "The minutes, including a list of attendees, must be sent to proceedings@xxxxxxxx within 10 days after the meeting, conference call or jabber session concludes." I note the 'must'. And there is a webpage http://www.ietf.org/documents/interim-meeting-blue-sheet-f2f.pdf although there is no statement as to whether the use of this document is a must, should, or something else! So in terms of participants signing, I do not see a requirement, but in terms of participants being reported, I do. And I would link this to 'Note Well' which warns participants that their participation may be a matter of public record and so whatever technology is used for a virtual interim, it should ensure that participants see the 'Note Well' in some form. And I would like to see that '10 days' modified, to be either 10 days or three days prior to the next meeting to cover the case I see of weekly meetings, when 10 days later is too late IMO. Tom Petch > Cheers, > -Benson