At 15:10 07/06/2006, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
The basic problem is that there is no way to acknowledge all the
folks who helped, for the most general definition of
"contributor". One would have to keep track of every person who
made a comment on the mailing list (whether the particular change
ended up used or not) and everyone who spoke at the meeting.
Yes. This seems to be exactly what contributing means for the IETF
mailing list environment, IPR wise. Some additional attention can be
paid to ADs, reviewers, and IESG Member having worked in a detailed
appeal (what IESG did for my appeal against the first part of BCP47).
That is why it is common (but not mandatory) to acknowledge the
working group that worked on the draft. This relates to the
acknowledgement section more than the contributors section.
In _this_ case we have an additional element which is that a single
RFC BCP becomes a two RFC BCP. The people who contributed to the
first RFC and the people who contributed to the former practice
should be acknowledged. Otherwise, there is no reason why we would have a BCP.
Acknowledging folks who helped is a good idea. Particularly for a
volunteer organization. But we can not and do not have to be
fanatic about trying to acknowledge everyone.
Full agreement. In _this_ case we also have an additional key need:
to externally demonstrate an IETF consensus, and its respect by the
IESG. The currently listed names and the way the IESG does not
respect the first part of BCP 47 (cf. my appeal) lead external people
feel this text is biased. I am very concerned because I think this
was but is no more true (the proposed text failed two IETF LCs, this
one should not): there is a tough consensus that this text is
acceptable for the Internationalized ASCII Internet.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf