You mean going 'Chatham House rule'? (i'm just commenting on this thread so that when it results in an I-D recommending how to write acks, I get acked...) Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ ________________________________________ From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern [jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 25 March 2013 16:35 To: Abdussalam Baryun Cc: Carsten Bormann; Paul Hoffman; ietf Subject: Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections) It seems to me that you are setting up by assertion a standard that has never applied to this community. Having said that, if we want to go down this path, then we could do what groups like IEEE do. Remove all authors names, all personal acknowledgements, etc. The work is simply the product of the committee. I would prefer not to go down that path. But if the alternative is copying every name from every person reported to have commented on the draft in the minutes or shown in the archive to have sent an email about the draft into a meaningless acknowledgements section, then the pure committee view would seem more sensible. Yours, Joel On 3/25/2013 8:36 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > Hi Carsten, > > In general, I agree we don't force authors/owners of documents, as > tradition in the world and in all reasonable organisation, we never > force any author to be thankful. But don't forget the situation in > IETF is different and the documents are different as well. > > The document is a IETF document (not individual) and the authors are > not the only owners of the I-D as in other documents outside IETF (we > name them editors because IETF works/documents are shared for its > better publication not the authors' publication). The documents were > called for volunteers in IETF to participate and review, why the IETF > request that if it does not include them. > > In any I-D it is a personal statement for the IETF not the authors, > this is my beleive, otherwise why I should participate/volunteer if i > am not dealing with IETF business (don't want to participate in > private or public companies business), > > AB > > On 3/25/13, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments >>> sections varies widely between RFCs. Some are fairly complete, some are >>> fairly vague and incomplete, and some are between. >> >> Bingo. It is up to the sole discretion of the document authors what they >> want to list in the Acknowledgements section. >> >> Trying to force people to thank other people strikes me as completely >> misguided. >> >> (That said, as a contributor, I have certain expectations of document >> authors here, but these are *not* actionable in any sense.) As an author, I >> sometimes have forgotten to include people who made contributions worth a >> mention, and I would have been spared the shame if the contributor would >> have alerted me to that at the right occasion. As a contributor, I have >> never felt the need to pressure an author to include me, though. >> >> It does make sense to relay some common sense of what is expected in an >> Acknowledgements section to new authors. >> I don't know we do this at the moment. >> >>> If you feel like you should be listed in the Acknowledgements section of a >>> WG document due to your contribution, and you're not listed in WG Last >>> Call, ask the WG to be included. 'Nuff said. >> >> I'd modify this to "ask the authors". >> Ask, as in "shouldn't the Acknowledgement section be updated", not demand as >> in "I have an ******g right to be in there". >> >> The contents of the Acknowledgment section is about as much subject to WG >> consensus as the authors' street addresses. >> >> Grüße, Carsten >> >>