On 2013-03-25, at 12:17, Scott Brim <swb(_at_)internet2(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On 03/25/13 11:54, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> allegedly
wrote:
So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about
acknowledgments would be in order.
or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and not
subject to IETF guidance.
My advice to document authors would be that you want the acknowledgements
section, and you want good names in there. Ambitions towards a purist
meritocracy aside, I think it's a simple truism that if you want to make
progress with (say) a DNS-related draft, you want as many big DNS names listed
as co-authors or as contributors as you can. Doing so adds weight to the
document, makes it easier to get it reviewed and makes reviews more successful.
(I am not saying that this is a primary concern; document quality, the relative
craziness of the ideas encapsulated within, prompt attention to suggested
changes, socialisation with relevant wg chairs and ADs, hallway conversations,
etc are also obviously important.)
My habit is to have the document source (and rendered copy) open on my screen
as I read and digest comments. If I make a change to the document following
someone's comment, I add them to the Acknowledgements section (and update the
change history section that I keep in a disposable appendix). The additional
effort required to do these small things is not great; I feel that the value of
such work is non-zero.
I have no great opinion on whether the Acknowledgements section should be
required. But I think it's useful, and would include it even if it wasn't.
Joe