+1. My view as well. I will add I think it generally means there will a
problem in a WG if an AUTHOR has issues with its WG participants, enough
to a point he/she begins to ignore them - despite all the input they
provided, included the indirect ones that help mold others to think and
chime in.
On 3/25/2013 3:14 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments
sections varies widely between RFCs. Some are fairly complete, some are fairly
vague and incomplete, and some are between.
Bingo. It is up to the sole discretion of the document authors what they want
to list in the Acknowledgements section.
Trying to force people to thank other people strikes me as completely misguided.
(That said, as a contributor, I have certain expectations of document authors
here, but these are *not* actionable in any sense.) As an author, I sometimes
have forgotten to include people who made contributions worth a mention, and I
would have been spared the shame if the contributor would have alerted me to
that at the right occasion. As a contributor, I have never felt the need to
pressure an author to include me, though.
It does make sense to relay some common sense of what is expected in an
Acknowledgements section to new authors.
I don't know we do this at the moment.
If you feel like you should be listed in the Acknowledgements section of a WG
document due to your contribution, and you're not listed in WG Last Call, ask
the WG to be included. 'Nuff said.
I'd modify this to "ask the authors".
Ask, as in "shouldn't the Acknowledgement section be updated", not demand as in "I
have an ******g right to be in there".
The contents of the Acknowledgment section is about as much subject to WG
consensus as the authors' street addresses.
Grüße, Carsten