Before we go down this rathole too far again -
1) If you want to second guess the working group, AD and IESG, then the best
approach is to probably review the bidding by reading the emails on the working
group list and then forming an opinion based on that record. I have and I'm
pretty content with the current result.
2) With respect to credit, I would add that even to be considered for it a
contributor's balance of payments on a document, standard etc needs to be
substantially net positive. If you're trying to claim credit for a reasonable
suggestion, but its one of 10s or 100s of unreasonable ones, and you've pretty
much disrupted the working group while making said suggestions..... well why
reward that?
3) I think we need to continue to give each WG and each AD deference to their
established ways of proceeding - unless and until there is some determination
supported by facts that there is a problem.
Mike
At 04:08 PM 7/3/2013, Eliot Lear wrote:
No hat on and I'm not commenting on the specific case at hand.
On the general point, I think it's better to err a bit toward the
generous side. As an author I use as a rule of thumb whether or not I
or the working group has taken someone's suggestion and put it into
text. And it has to be more than editorial. A missing "," doesn't get
you into acknowlegments, but highlighting confusion or clarifying
language probably does.
Eliot