On Sun, 24 Mar 2013, John Curran wrote:
On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:42 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
<abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
You mean the editors of this draft (I will note them as not
acknowledging participants, for my future review). I am a MANET WG
participants, but if you mention the names that made efforts it is
more true because many are MANET participants and never send a
comment. Please note that IETF mentioned, Request For Comments= RFC. I
commented on the draft, and will only continue commenting on drafts
that are edited and monitored by acknowledging IETF participants.
...
It is non-sensical to expect document editors to track and list everybody
who had input on a given draft, particularly when one considers the volume
of comments received on many of the mailing lists and working groups.
The "Acknowledgements section" has a long tradition of listing those folks
who provided substantial contributions to the document, and often has all
others by reference in a "members of the Foo working group" mention in that
section.
In my opinion, it would be a shame for any IETF energies to be diverted for
the purposes of second-guessing the good faith efforts of document editors
by revisiting this tradition where we already have successful running code.
Therefore, I would suggest that if someone feels they contributed and
there is any evidence in blue sheets or mailing list comments, give them
credit. I think the act of following the mailing list discussion w/o
comment makes the contribution one of active review. So taking the time
to offer comment rises to a level above that. Since working groups don't
have membership, acknowledging all members of a WG is meaningless.
There have been several recent long threads regarding how to encourage
continued participation in the IETF. Acknowledgement of WG participation
by 'name' is a small token to encourage future contributions, and I
suspect for some employer funded participants, important in the
justification of that funding.
Dave Morris