--On Monday, October 3, 2022 17:46 -0400 Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/3/22 17:41, Paul Wouters wrote: > >> You are meandering from the point I was making. The documents >> could not remain published. >> >> While you say "acknowledge the problem, " you finish that >> sentence with basically not acknowledging to problem and >> fully ignoring it for your own wish list. > > My view of the problem you cited is that AI is being > misused. I still don't think that Dan's drafts were worthy > of removal. I do think, however, that perhaps we should > require permission from the mentioned individual before > publishing a draft that mentions any living person in any way. Keith and Paul, Can we try to separate what I (at least) see as different problems. As you might know, I've written acknowledgments that say that John Doe made contributions to the specification, including writing most of Sections X and Y, that were very important even if he did not agree with the ultimate result. I think that sort of tracking is important for the community and it is not at all clear to me that a request from Mr. Doe to remove his name entirely should be honored. It is not, of course, the sort of acknowledgement that Paul received. We have also have situations where people have been listed as co-authors on a document, implying endorsement of the content of a document, without their permission. Clearly both that type of action and the sort of "acknowledgement" Paul received are problematic. Do they imply that we need better and clearer mechanisms for taking documents down because they implied people were endorsing the content who were not or that names were mentioned in order to say or imply negative things about those people, especially if the targets request that? Yes, definitely. But those are not, IMO, BCP 83 issues unless the pen-holding author is accused of regular patterns of bad and disruptive behavior of that variety. I don't know, but I don't think those documents were taken down because they acknowledge Paul in an inappropriate way. They were, as I understand it, taken down because of more extensive content that seriously violated community norms. But, AFAICT, none of that has anything to do with BCP 83 because it, again, AFAICT, is strictly about mailing lists. If we are going to make changes, that is something else that should be looked at carefully, but, as of now... best, john -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
