On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Joel M. Halpern
<jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com> wrote:
It seems to me that you are setting up by assertion a standard that has
never applied to this community.
Having said that, if we want to go down this path, then we could do what
groups like IEEE do. Remove all authors names, all personal
acknowledgements, etc. The work is simply the product of the committee. I
would prefer not to go down that path.
I don't see how it is possible for the IETF to copy the IEEE policy at
the WG level. (And I agree that it would not be desirable to do so.)
IEEE standards (at least in IEEE 802) do not have any title page
author(s) but do have the complete list of 802... WG voting members in
the WG that approved the document, then the complete list of IEEE
Sponsor Ballot voters that approved the document, then the complete
list of IEEE Standards Association Board members when the Standards
Board approved the document.
For example, just glancing at IEEE Std. 802.1BR-2012, there is
prefatory information with the following sub-intros under the overall
heading "Participants":
"At the time this standard was approved, the IEEE 802.1 Working Group
had the following voting members:" (So, for example, I am listed
although I don't believe I submitted a comment on that document.)
"The following members of the individual balloting committee voted on
this standard. Balloters may have voted for approval, disapproval, or
abstention."
and
"When the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved this standard on 14 May
2012, it had the following membership:"
The first of these lists specifically distinguishes the WG and task
group Officers and the Editor involved in the document. Note that,
other than perhaps the listing of the Editor, these lists have nothing
to do with who supported or opposed the document or who submitted or
drafted text or comments. They are purely formalistic lists based on
status, although in practice, most of those who commented or drafted
text would be included.
Thanks,
Donald
=============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
But if the
alternative is copying
every name from every person reported to have commented on the draft in the
minutes or shown in the archive to have sent an email about the draft into a
meaningless acknowledgements section, then the pure committee view would
seem more sensible.
Yours,
Joel
On 3/25/2013 8:36 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Hi Carsten,
In general, I agree we don't force authors/owners of documents, as
tradition in the world and in all reasonable organisation, we never
force any author to be thankful. But don't forget the situation in
IETF is different and the documents are different as well.
The document is a IETF document (not individual) and the authors are
not the only owners of the I-D as in other documents outside IETF (we
name them editors because IETF works/documents are shared for its
better publication not the authors' publication). The documents were
called for volunteers in IETF to participate and review, why the IETF
request that if it does not include them.
In any I-D it is a personal statement for the IETF not the authors,
this is my beleive, otherwise why I should participate/volunteer if i
am not dealing with IETF business (don't want to participate in
private or public companies business),
AB
On 3/25/13, Carsten Bormann <cabo(_at_)tzi(_dot_)org> 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