ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections (was: Re: [manet] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-02.txt)

2013-03-24 18:59:36
I don't agree that editors should miss efforts and input owners for
their individual-draft or WG draft. I think it is a shame that editors
may ignore such efforts while they benefit from the input to change
their draft. Why editor name is mentioned as authors not contributors
while it may be the IETF draft, IMHO because they are the main
contributors, but acknowledgements are not only for other input
contributors, also SHOULD include commenters who reply to requests and
add to the document value/direction.

Once I heard one IETF WG Chair (security issues wg) explaining the
*note well* as if any participant makes a side conversation ideas and
was heard by others, then it can be stolen. It is a shame to allow
stealing information without relating to sources or resources, I think
not acknowledging reviewers is not professional and wrong tradition.

AB

On 3/24/13, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
At 08:46 24-03-2013, John Curran wrote:
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.

I would expect a document editor to track changes and be able to
explain why the changes were made.  My guess is that a significant
number of working group drafts do not receive a high volume of comments.

At 10:42 24-03-2013, David Morris wrote:
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.

Yes.

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.

Yes.

The tradition of acknowledgments may be slowly fading away for obvious
reasons.

Regards,
-sm



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>