Spencer,
This opens up yet another can of worms. Suppose that
everybody who makes a comment on a draft (substantive, or
otherwise) has to be listed and every one listed is bound by
BCPs relating to IPR, copyright, etc. in RFC content.
What happens if someone - perhaps having suggested that
a word was misspelled - would prefer not to be bound by the
BCPs (or perhaps is not permitted to be so bound)? Can they
request to be left out? If they do, can an editor leave them
out?
It occasionally happens now that a draft departs from
the original direction that some of the contributors wanted
it to go, and - slightly less often - those that disagree
with the outcome ask to be de-listed. There are good and
reasonable reasons to allow this - especially as there may
be very strong reactions from a particular employer that is
seen as "advocating" something they do not intend to do.
In such cases, these early contributors provided much
of the content - even if the over-all outcome is not in line
with their intentions. So, again, would we be able to omit
their names?
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer(_at_)mcsr-labs(_dot_)org]
--> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:48 AM
--> To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Subject: Re: Acknowledgements section in a RFC (Was: Last
--> Call: 'Matching of Language Tags' to BCP (draft-ietf-ltru-matching)
-->
--> Perhaps I lead a sheltered life, but on two of these points...
-->
--> >> > - Appendix A - some names seem to be missing. I could
--> quote a small
--> >> > score of them?
--> >>
--> >>I do not know if there are written rules about the
--> "Acknowledgements"
--> >>or "Credits" section in a RFC. It seems quite variable between the
--> >>RFCs. I am mentioned in draft-ietf-ltru-matching-14 for
--> what I regard
--> >>as a very small contribution and not in RFC 4408 where I
--> feel that my
--> >>contribution is more substantive.
--> >
--> > Dear Stephane,
--> > This may seem trivial, but IMHO quoting every contributor
--> is important for
--> > several key reasons.
--> >
--> > - the IETF is made of paid and free volunteers. The
--> reward of the free
--> > participants is their exposure. If we want top quality
--> participants we
--> > must acknowledge their contributions.
-->
--> This is a real concern (I am a working group draft editor
--> for a draft where
--> probably 30 percent of the e-mail I've received on the
--> draft has been about
--> acknowledgements). I thought it was a more serious concern
--> for academics and
--> consultants, but am now seeing the same concerns from
--> corporate standards
--> types and development engineers in other working groups. I
--> have expressed
--> this as a concern in private e-mail, but don't know what
--> the answer is.
-->
--> > - the IPR is to all the co-authors. Every person having
--> contributed a
--> > word, a concept, a change, positively or negatively is a
--> co-author. This
--> > also has some importance to show the document is not the
--> work of an
--> > affinity group (as discussed in RFC 3774) but of a true WG.
-->
--> In my limited SDO experience, beyond IETF I am most familar
--> with IEEE 802.1
--> practice, which is to list "participants" (at least, this
--> is what appears in
--> the most recent IEEE 802.1 standard appearing on "Getieee802" at
--> http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.1AB-2005.p
--> df), where the
--> list is "membership at the time of approval", and "balloted
--> at various
--> times".
-->
--> Since we have no clue who the "membership" of an IETF
--> working group is, I
--> don't know how to do the equivalent thing here.
-->
--> Spencer
-->
-->
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf