John,
Agree.
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com]
--> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:04 PM
--> To: Gray, Eric
--> Cc: 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)
-->
-->
-->
--> --On Wednesday, 07 June, 2006 14:22 -0400 "Gray, Eric"
--> <Eric(_dot_)Gray(_at_)marconi(_dot_)com> wrote:
-->
--> > John,
--> >
--> > I disagree both in the belief that the Note Well is
--> > clear on this and the sense of your argument that anyone
--> > participating in any part of a discussion can be made
--> > retroactively responsible for the entire discussion.
-->
--> I think were we disagree is about the notion that inclusion of
--> one's name in an acknowledgement implies "responsibility" for
--> any part of the discussion, much less all of it.
-->
--> > The Note Well is not clear because it makes sweeping
--> > statements about the way in which BCP 78 and 79 may apply
--> > to "contributions". The obvious (but not clear) intent is
--> > that what you contribute is now subject to provisions of
--> > these BCPs that apply to contributions. What is both more
--> > subtle and not clearly excluded is that _only_ what you've
--> > contributed applies and that contributing to a work is not
--> > the same as "authoring" it.
-->
--> To the extent to which you believe that the Note Well is unclear
--> or defective, please take that to the IPR WG.
-->
--> > I refer directly to the required RFC inclusions that
--> > specifically use the word "author" and their rights and
--> > responsibilities with respect to IPR and copyrights. If I
--> > make a comment about a rev -01 version of a draft and stop
--> > participating in the work, I may not be held accountable
--> > for IPR I may know of but which did not enter into the text
--> > until sometime after I stopped looking at it.
-->
--> I believe that is true. I also do not believe that an
--> acknowledgement constitutes an assertion of accountability.
--> But those are matters for counsel -- I will assert my beliefs
--> about what ought to be happening here, but not about the legal
--> implications of particular text. In particular, I do not
--> believe that inclusion or exclusion from an acknowledgement
--> implies an IPR claims or responsibilities at all: to do so would
--> confound many centuries of publications history. An exception
--> might(and probably would) arise if the contribution were
--> identified in very specific terms, but those terms would bind
--> that particular author/ contributor only to that text. As far
--> as I recall, we have never included text in acknowledgements
--> that says, e.g., "Joe Blow contributed section 1.2.3.4 in its
--> entirety and it is used with his permission", so the
--> implications of that form are not relevant.
-->
--> > Similarly, if I object to work that has been done, you
--> > may not attach my name to it against my objections - unless
--> > either the Note Well, and the BCPs, both explicitly include
--> > a provision for implied consent. If that is the case, now,
--> > then it is most certainly not "clear" that it is.
-->
--> It would clearly be inappropriate to list you as an author.
--> Given our current peculiar definition of "Contributor" in the
--> RFC sense, it would probably be inappropriate to include you as
--> one of those, at least without permitting you to include a
--> statement of dissent. It seems to me that you have no standing
--> to object to the inclusion of your name in an acknowledgement if
--> you, in fact, did something that the author thought was
--> appropriate to acknowledge. I'd hope that, in normal
--> circumstances, the author would honor your request to remove
--> your name, but I can also see circumstances in which removing
--> your name would be inappropriate.
-->
--> As one specific example, suppose the acknowledgements said
--> "Significant contributions to the topics discussed in this
--> document came from an ad hoc group consisting of <list of
--> participants in that group>". Now, adding a "not all members of
--> the group agree with the final conclusions represented in this
--> document" would be appropriate if true. But removing a name
--> from the list of people who participated in the group,
--> especially the name of someone who could be clearly determined
--> from the group's mailing list to have actively participated,
--> would simply be a lie and, IMO, completely inappropriate.
-->
--> > This is the negative side of the discussion going on.
--> > People are focusing on reasons why someone might want to be
--> > included in acknowledgements. I am merely pointing out that
--> > it is also possible that someone might not want this.
-->
--> Understood. But that is precisely why listing in an
--> acknowledgement must not have implications of "responsibility"
--> for the whole document.
-->
--> And this discussion really belongs in the IPR WG.
-->
--> john
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf