Before we go down this rathole too far again - 1) If you want to second guess the working group, AD and IESG, then the best approach is to probably review the bidding by reading the emails on the working group list and then forming an opinion based on that record. I have and I'm pretty content with the current result. 2) With respect to credit, I would add that even to be considered for it a contributor's balance of payments on a document, standard etc needs to be substantially net positive. If you're trying to claim credit for a reasonable suggestion, but its one of 10s or 100s of unreasonable ones, and you've pretty much disrupted the working group while making said suggestions..... well why reward that? 3) I think we need to continue to give each WG and each AD deference to their established ways of proceeding - unless and until there is some determination supported by facts that there is a problem. Mike At 04:08 PM 7/3/2013, Eliot Lear wrote: >No hat on and I'm not commenting on the specific case at hand. > >On the general point, I think it's better to err a bit toward the >generous side. As an author I use as a rule of thumb whether or not I >or the working group has taken someone's suggestion and put it into >text. And it has to be more than editorial. A missing "," doesn't get >you into acknowlegments, but highlighting confusion or clarifying >language probably does. > >Eliot