Notice 4144 has no acknowledgements except for the RFC editor sponsorship. :)
Most I see is common sense, but my view, in my somewhat limited work areas I have participating in, it doesn't matter if the editor/author doesn't like you. I guess that would be the exception. I think overall 4144 doesn't quite consider the "part time" IETF warrior, such as myself. Even if you could practice 4414 (except maybe not attend IETF meetings yet which you have stated is basically required to get people to feel comfortable with you), be 100% instructmental in the genesis of getting work and even RFCs initiatiated and done and yet no acknowledgements (acks) of your input is recognized. Again, not a big thing for me. I am not looking for a pat on the back (its already sore from my earlier years). Its not something I would normally expect to be thinking about. I'm an engineer first and normally just hope to avoid conflicts, including potential conflicts. To me, "Getting it right.... The First Time" is the most important quality to look for in work. But I have to say, I still not uset to the IETF competitive nature inherently has. 4144 touches base with some of this, in regards to making sure you can communicate with others. But I'm from a schoole where it should be a natural professional action of working with your peers at all levels, that basically dictates the work done.
Nonetheless, its all seems to be on the editor 99% of the time. Sometimes it seems random. Sometimes it intentionally and strategically prepared. I've seen acks where I never notice any input in a WG yet the name(s) was added most likely to add some "endorsement" value. Which is not a bad idea - its what I will look for as well. But to exclude critics is a questionable decision. I can understand why as well, but readers seeing the critics can often add weight to the higher level of review done. Personally, if I didn't agree with an I-D or its direction, I have asked the Editor to remove my name. I've done that twice. Twice I have reminded editors; one added it and the other basically decided against the request. Can't worry about that. I feel it usually comes back to the person in some form or another. Thats becomes a personal thing only which is probably not the norm when considering these things. Overall what the Editor/Author feels adds value to the document, and how it can help it reach the next stage, "SHOULD" be a big part of the considerations. Endorsement value should be a big part of it. It helps readers to see respected technical people who have "reviewed" docs, including known critics whether you respect their credentials or not, are PITA or otherwise. If the EDITOR needs to exclude input from critics, the doc probably has a problem in the first place.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Abdussalam Baryun" <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "IETF discussion list" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
>A couple of points here:
>
>>> In practice, that depends on the judgment the document author; does
>>> the document author feel that you have made a "significant"
>>> contribution to the document?
>>
>> I agree that it is responsibility of owners or authors. In IETF the
>> I-D may be a WG I-D so the group work together to feel what is best,
>
> This actually varies. Working groups will sometimes direct
> authors/editors on what should be in the Acknowledgments section, but
> more often it's left to the judgment of the authors/editors -- it's
> their section. And, yes, authors sometimes include family, departed
> colleagues, and even software ("This document was prepared using
> xml2rfc version x.y.z.").
>
>> Also depend on *why* the acknowledge section. Authors don't only ACK
>> because of significant contributions
> ...
>> In IETF it is all about discussions and comments
>> for its I-Ds and RFCs, new comers' participation make the discussions
>> valueable in my opinion,
>
> Read carefully what Dale said: he did not say "contributed significant
> text", but "made a significant contribution". We very often
> acknowledge people who gave particularly useful reviews, had
> particularly important roles in discussions, contributed ideas, and
> such. It's about how the document got to where it is, so, yes,
> discussions and comments, and newbies as well as grey-beards.
>
>>> My belief is that one must participate in the IETF fairly intensively
>>> for six months to a year before one can gain a reputation as being a
>>> knowledgeable contributor. After all, most of the people authoring
>>> documents have been participating for several years -- and they
>>> already know each other. Before you have gained that reputation, it
>>> may be difficult to get people to pay attention to your contributions,
>>> even if they are objectively valuable. I describe the rule in the
>>> IETF as "Everyone may speak; not everyone is listened to." You need
>>> to prove yourself to be a person worth listening to.
>>
>> I agree, but we should n't ignore voices of new participants, and
>> don't ignore people that are listening and never participate.
>
> Absolutely, and no one here purposefully ignores the voices of new
> participants. Dale is speaking not about what *should* happen, but
> what our human nature is: we naturally pay closer attention to people
> we already know and respect, whose contributions have previously been
> shown to be valuable. New participants who understand this and join
> the community with an eye toward showing their value in that way (as
> Dale noted, see RFC 4144) are accepted more quickly. In an ideal
> world, if the first word you post to a mailing list is useful, you
> should be acknowledged, praised, and accepted. Normal human social
> interactions work against that, unfortunately.
>
>> Your right, however, just to add that I don't participate in IETF to
>> make reputation, because I think it is not a place for reputation, I
>> try to participate to volunteer in the Internet Community to add to my
>> Internet knowledge and others,
>
> You aren't seeking reputation in the world at large, no... but you
> must develop a good reputation among the other IETF participants --
> that's what Dale's saying. It's that human nature thing.
>
> You want to get to a place where people say, "When AB says something,
> pay attention, because he's usually right." We all have people like
> that in our areas of expertise, and we all know who they are.
>
> Barry
>