--On Monday, March 25, 2013 11:59 -0400 Scott Kitterman
<scott(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> wrote:
So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about
acknowledgments would be in order. If so, Abdussalam has done
us something of a favor by raising the issue explicitly (no
matter what various of us think of his methods). If such
guidance is needed, a lengthy discussion on the IETF list is
almost certainly not the best way to put it together, so we
agree about what should happen now even if not completely
about the reasons or situation.
It does not necessarily follow that because there is
significant variation, more guidance is needed. Personally,
I think there should be a strong bias against more
bureaucracy around non-technical aspects of IETF work.
Yes, Scott. And I've been saying the latter, rather
consistently I think, for years.
However, I quite deliberately said "perhaps", not "we should
rush out and do something". Equally deliberately, I said
"guidance" not "a bunch of new rules and mechanisms for
enforcing them". Especially given the interaction between
acknowledgments and IPR policies, a little general guidance
might be worthwhile even though I would worry about the risk of
is being turned into rules.
I would definitely consider Scott Brim's suggestion to be within
the range of acceptable guidance. So would a clear statement
that Acknowledgments sections and their content are entirely at
the discretion of the listed authors/editors, even though the
latter might require some adjustments in IPR policy.
If someone feels like doing the work, I'd recommend a discussion
(off the IETF list) with the IESG or selected ADs about whether
a draft would be welcome and how it should be handled.
Abdussalam, I would suggest that you _not_ try to take the lead
on that unless you can do so as a collector and careful and
balanced interpreter of community ideas, not as simply an
expression of your own, obviously passionate, beliefs on the
subject.
john