Speaking to the mechanics of the software:
For modern full IETF meetings, the bluesheets are _only_ populated via the datatracker (and you have the ability to say "I was there" at a session you attended but didn't manage to sign into while you were there). What's shown is the name configured for the datatracker account.
There's very few controls on what that name field can contain - this hasn't been a particular problem so far. But the record is a _person_ record - so to the same extent that we know who submitted a draft, we know who attended a meeting.
That said, I recognize that Rob's original question was one about
policy.
RjS
On 4/15/25 4:04 PM, George Michaelson
wrote:
Purely as a point of information for a very long time we were told blue sheets were for room sizing and no one cared about the name.
Meetecho logins manage queues and would provide a record of participation as a similar quality in my personal opinion.
We also historically had complaints with people taking photos of blue sheets.
I can't speak to current motivations or practice.
Cheers
George (in a personal capacity)
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025, 6:38 am S Moonesamy, <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Rob,
At 11:40 AM 15-04-2025, Rob Sayre wrote:
>I noticed some extremely brief names on the blue sheets from IETF
>122. That led me to question what purpose these forms serve. I asked
>a bit, and was told it was a matter for the LLC. I don't know where
>to ask, so it's here.
>
>I'll use my own name as an example. What is OK on a blue sheet?
>
>Robert F. Sayre
>Robert Sayre
>Rob Sayre
>Rob S <--- I saw these
>RS
>R
>Rob da MC
>...
>
>If we allow all of these, what is the point?
The rule is that the Chair and/or Secretary must ensure that minutes
of a session are taken and that an attendance list is
circulated. The attendance list used to be referred to as "blue
sheets" because of the color of the sheets of paper. It is viewed as
good practice in other venues to have a list of persons who attended
a meeting. It may be the same for meetings held within the context
of the "standards process".
The practice at IETF meetings was to disclose name and
affiliation. I assume that it was about openness (BCP 9). The
affiliation part could be about not having to formalize "balance".
I noticed that some attendees did not disclose name or
affiliation. A meeting would not look like a serious activity if the
information in attendance list is opaque. There may have been some
assumption which led to the practice of disclosing name and
affiliation, i.e. there was no need to write a "best current
practice" to explain to an attendee how to write his/her name.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
