--On Wednesday, 07 June, 2006 12:33 -0400 "Gray, Eric"
<Eric.Gray@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Spencer,
>
> This opens up yet another can of worms. Suppose that
> everybody who makes a comment on a draft (substantive, or
> otherwise) has to be listed and every one listed is bound by
> BCPs relating to IPR, copyright, etc. in RFC content.
They are so bound... read the Note Well. Whether they should be
so listed is a separate issue.
> What happens if someone - perhaps having suggested that
> a word was misspelled - would prefer not to be bound by the
> BCPs (or perhaps is not permitted to be so bound)? Can they
> request to be left out? If they do, can an editor leave them
> out?
Too bad. If they participate in the IETF at the level of either
attending meetings or saying anything, they are stuck. While
there are guidelines now (see Bob Braden's note) and guidelines
can always be further tuned, I think we need to give some
discretion to document editors about who should be listed --at
least until and unless we have a clear definition of, e.g., WG
membership.
> It occasionally happens now that a draft departs from
> the original direction that some of the contributors wanted
> it to go, and - slightly less often - those that disagree
> with the outcome ask to be de-listed. There are good and
> reasonable reasons to allow this - especially as there may
> be very strong reactions from a particular employer that is
> seen as "advocating" something they do not intend to do.
>
> In such cases, these early contributors provided much
> of the content - even if the over-all outcome is not in line
> with their intentions. So, again, would we be able to omit
> their names?
I have often dealt with that issue in acknowledgements by being
very explicit that all contributors may not agree with the
conclusions reached as a consequence of their suggestions (or
with their suggestions included). An even more extreme case
exists than the ones that you mention: someone raises an issue
and preference and the document is ultimately clarified to
reflect exactly the opposite preference. In some of these
cases, the document would not have addressed the topic at all
had the issue not been raised. The person who raised the issue
may still have made a contribution significant enough to justify
acknowledgement but may have always been in violent disagreement
with the conclusion reached by the IETF process about how to
deal with it.
The underlying problem here is not unique to the IETF. And
people who don't want to contribute or be bound by the rules
should avoid participation -- there isn't any "whoops, I don't
like the results so the rules should retroactively not apply to
me and the fact that I participated at all should be erased"
option. Having such an option with regard to rule-conforming
would result in chaos. Again, the Note Well is very clear about
this (and there is a parallel discussion going in circles,
perhaps parallel ones, in the IPR WG).
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf