Hi, In all the documents that I participated or edited, I always keep track of all the inputs and comments received and unless they are just editorial comments (unless very extensive) include them in the ack section. It is a simple matter of gratitude and simply to achieve. For many reasons, including legal ones, all the co-authors should be explicitly listed with all their details in the authors section. I will say in alphabetic order ? One possible way to avoid some of the problems listing many co-authors, co-editors, etc., in the front page header could be so simple as not having any one. Being IETF work, at the end, that don't really cares so much. However, recognizing all kind of contributors (I'm not referring just "all" the WG members), is a must, as many people contributes with their own time and it possibly the only way to get some recognition, otherwise we will start missing more and more contributors sooner or later. Also, co-authors have the right to as for who should be acknowledged. For example, several documents I've participated have been only possible thanks to the funding of research programs, such as national ones or in Europe the IST-EC one. We have the obligation to get listed as co-authors and have a citation to that co-funding to be able to get our expenses paid, and nobody can oppose to that. Regards, Jordi > De: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Responder a: <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> > Fecha: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:10:25 -0400 > Para: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Asunto: Re: Acknowledgements section in a RFC (Was: Last Call: 'Matching of > Language Tags' to BCP (draft-ietf-ltru-matching) > > The basic problem is that there is no way to acknowledge all the > folks who helped, for the most general definition of > "contributor". One would have to keep track of every person who made > a comment on the mailing list (whether the particular change ended up > used or not) and everyone who spoke at the meeting. > That is why it is common (but not mandatory) to acknowledge the > working group that worked on the draft. This relates to the > acknowledgement section more than the contributors section. > > Acknowledging folks who helped is a good idea. Particularly for a > volunteer organization. But we can not and do not have to be fanatic > about trying to acknowledge everyone. > > On a historical note, the acknowledgements section was intended for > folks who wrote pieces, or folks who suggested useful ideas, or > provided significant useful corrections, etc. The contributors > section was introduced in conjunction with the effort to reduce the > set of authors to those who wrote the primary text. So Contributors > is usually used for those who wrote sections of text, but not enough > to be authors. (The debate about whether we should ahve that > distinction is a different discussion, please.) So we actually > should be trying to be careful and thurough about the "contributors" > section, since those are folks who wrote noticeably more than a > single paragraph, and we ought to be able to tell who they are. Even > then, mistakes will be made, and as far as I can tell it is not fatal. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > At 07:47 AM 6/7/2006, Spencer Dawkins wrote: >> Perhaps I lead a sheltered life, but on two of these points... >> >>>>> - Appendix A - some names seem to be missing. I could quote a small >>>>> score of them? >>>> >>>> I do not know if there are written rules about the "Acknowledgements" >>>> or "Credits" section in a RFC. It seems quite variable between the >>>> RFCs. I am mentioned in draft-ietf-ltru-matching-14 for what I regard >>>> as a very small contribution and not in RFC 4408 where I feel that my >>>> contribution is more substantive. >>> >>> Dear Stephane, >>> This may seem trivial, but IMHO quoting every contributor is >>> important for several key reasons. >>> >>> - the IETF is made of paid and free volunteers. The reward of the >>> free participants is their exposure. If we want top quality >>> participants we must acknowledge their contributions. >> >> This is a real concern (I am a working group draft editor for a >> draft where probably 30 percent of the e-mail I've received on the >> draft has been about acknowledgements). I thought it was a more >> serious concern for academics and consultants, but am now seeing the >> same concerns from corporate standards types and development >> engineers in other working groups. I have expressed this as a >> concern in private e-mail, but don't know what the answer is. >> >>> - the IPR is to all the co-authors. Every person having contributed >>> a word, a concept, a change, positively or negatively is a >>> co-author. This also has some importance to show the document is >>> not the work of an affinity group (as discussed in RFC 3774) but of a true >>> WG. >> >> In my limited SDO experience, beyond IETF I am most familar with >> IEEE 802.1 practice, which is to list "participants" (at least, this >> is what appears in the most recent IEEE 802.1 standard appearing on >> "Getieee802" at >> http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.1AB-2005.pdf), >> where the list is "membership at the time of approval", and >> "balloted at various times". >> >> Since we have no clue who the "membership" of an IETF working group >> is, I don't know how to do the equivalent thing here. >> >> Spencer >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf