Brian,
I think your draft is helpful and I think Joel's text, possibly
(eventually) with a pointer to that draft addresses the issue.
My only concern is that the introduction of a comment about
acknowledgments as a parenthetical note, without further
qualification, in the draft IETF statement could unnecessarily
open a can of worms. I'm mostly indifferent to whether the
problem is fixed by adding more words to this statement or by
removing the text and treating the acknowledgments question as a
separate topic, discussed and documented elsewhere (or some
combination of the two).
john
--On Saturday, May 30, 2015 12:02 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
I believe John is correct. Whether or not they are surprises,
involuntary acknowledgements may be highly desirable in some
circumstances.
But wait... there's a draft about this since three minutes ago:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-whats-an-author-01
Regards
Brian
On 30/05/2015 11:25, joel jaeggli wrote:
Afaik from our discussion that led to this statement, and the
recent appeal on the subject, The contents of the
acknowledges section is largely at the discretion of the
editors/authors.
I liked our words on the subject at the time.
Writing acknowledgments sections is largely a matter of
editorial discretion, where good sense and general
attribution practices are the primary guidelines, although
RFC 2026 Section 10.3.1 has some specific rules regarding
acknowledgment of major contributors, copyright, and IPR.
On 5/29/15 4:03 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
John,
I hope this does not turn into a long discussion, but I
believe the parenthetical note about "surprised
acknowledgment" either needs to be removed
FWIW, after seeing your note I do agree that it could be
misinterpreted. I'm fine with removing it. But I make no
claims about the preferences of my fellow IESG members
regarding such removal :-)
Jari