John, Agree. --> -----Original Message----- --> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] --> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:04 PM --> To: Gray, Eric --> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx --> Subject: RE: Acknowledgements section in a RFC (Was: Last --> Call: 'Matching of Language Tags' to BCP (draft-ietf-ltru-matching) --> --> --> --> --On Wednesday, 07 June, 2006 14:22 -0400 "Gray, Eric" --> <Eric.Gray@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: --> --> > John, --> > --> > I disagree both in the belief that the Note Well is --> > clear on this and the sense of your argument that anyone --> > participating in any part of a discussion can be made --> > retroactively responsible for the entire discussion. --> --> I think were we disagree is about the notion that inclusion of --> one's name in an acknowledgement implies "responsibility" for --> any part of the discussion, much less all of it. --> --> > The Note Well is not clear because it makes sweeping --> > statements about the way in which BCP 78 and 79 may apply --> > to "contributions". The obvious (but not clear) intent is --> > that what you contribute is now subject to provisions of --> > these BCPs that apply to contributions. What is both more --> > subtle and not clearly excluded is that _only_ what you've --> > contributed applies and that contributing to a work is not --> > the same as "authoring" it. --> --> To the extent to which you believe that the Note Well is unclear --> or defective, please take that to the IPR WG. --> --> > I refer directly to the required RFC inclusions that --> > specifically use the word "author" and their rights and --> > responsibilities with respect to IPR and copyrights. If I --> > make a comment about a rev -01 version of a draft and stop --> > participating in the work, I may not be held accountable --> > for IPR I may know of but which did not enter into the text --> > until sometime after I stopped looking at it. --> --> I believe that is true. I also do not believe that an --> acknowledgement constitutes an assertion of accountability. --> But those are matters for counsel -- I will assert my beliefs --> about what ought to be happening here, but not about the legal --> implications of particular text. In particular, I do not --> believe that inclusion or exclusion from an acknowledgement --> implies an IPR claims or responsibilities at all: to do so would --> confound many centuries of publications history. An exception --> might(and probably would) arise if the contribution were --> identified in very specific terms, but those terms would bind --> that particular author/ contributor only to that text. As far --> as I recall, we have never included text in acknowledgements --> that says, e.g., "Joe Blow contributed section 1.2.3.4 in its --> entirety and it is used with his permission", so the --> implications of that form are not relevant. --> --> > Similarly, if I object to work that has been done, you --> > may not attach my name to it against my objections - unless --> > either the Note Well, and the BCPs, both explicitly include --> > a provision for implied consent. If that is the case, now, --> > then it is most certainly not "clear" that it is. --> --> It would clearly be inappropriate to list you as an author. --> Given our current peculiar definition of "Contributor" in the --> RFC sense, it would probably be inappropriate to include you as --> one of those, at least without permitting you to include a --> statement of dissent. It seems to me that you have no standing --> to object to the inclusion of your name in an acknowledgement if --> you, in fact, did something that the author thought was --> appropriate to acknowledge. I'd hope that, in normal --> circumstances, the author would honor your request to remove --> your name, but I can also see circumstances in which removing --> your name would be inappropriate. --> --> As one specific example, suppose the acknowledgements said --> "Significant contributions to the topics discussed in this --> document came from an ad hoc group consisting of <list of --> participants in that group>". Now, adding a "not all members of --> the group agree with the final conclusions represented in this --> document" would be appropriate if true. But removing a name --> from the list of people who participated in the group, --> especially the name of someone who could be clearly determined --> from the group's mailing list to have actively participated, --> would simply be a lie and, IMO, completely inappropriate. --> --> > This is the negative side of the discussion going on. --> > People are focusing on reasons why someone might want to be --> > included in acknowledgements. I am merely pointing out that --> > it is also possible that someone might not want this. --> --> Understood. But that is precisely why listing in an --> acknowledgement must not have implications of "responsibility" --> for the whole document. --> --> And this discussion really belongs in the IPR WG. --> --> john --> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf