On 2025-04-16 13:03, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In any case, the only case I have seen of people not signing with their full name is the UK NCSC employees one, and I have seen them do the same at every conference. I do not know if this is an agency policy and what are the reasons, but perhaps, if lists weren't made public on the web, they would have less need to do so. I'm aware of a fair number of people in civil society that use a similar naming convention, especially where they engage in relatively sensitive areas of policy work. It would be disappointing if we adopted a practice that acted as a barrier to engagement without a compelling reason. Looking more broadly, I think there is a much more important issue affecting blue sheets and that is the sometimes significant discrepancy between the number of people in the room and the number of names on the sheets. I've noted this for in-person attendees at IETF meetings, where some people only sign in to Datatracker if they decide to approach the mic line, and only then if the chairs are insistent on using Meetecho to manage the queue. I've also seen this at some interim meetings in the past, with 30%+ of attendees being invisible to the blue sheets, although I think this might be fixed now if interim meetings all use Meetecho? I'd prefer to see priority given to capturing all attendees on blue sheets before concerning ourselves with the separate question of the acceptable public naming convention for Datatracker. Andrew
