Brian,
I think your draft is helpful and I think Joel's text, possibly
(eventually) with a pointer to that draft addresses the issue.
My only concern is that the introduction of a comment about
acknowledgments as a parenthetical note, without further
qualification, in the draft IETF statement could unnecessarily
open a can of worms. I'm mostly indifferent to whether the
problem is fixed by adding more words to this statement or by
removing the text and treating the acknowledgments question as a
separate topic, discussed and documented elsewhere (or some
combination of the two).
john
--On Saturday, May 30, 2015 12:02 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I believe John is correct. Whether or not they are surprises,
> involuntary acknowledgements may be highly desirable in some
> circumstances.
>
> But wait... there's a draft about this since three minutes ago:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-whats-an-author-01
>
> Regards
> Brian
>
> On 30/05/2015 11:25, joel jaeggli wrote:
>> Afaik from our discussion that led to this statement, and the
>> recent appeal on the subject, The contents of the
>> acknowledges section is largely at the discretion of the
>> editors/authors.
>>
>> I liked our words on the subject at the time.
>>
>> Writing acknowledgments sections is largely a matter of
>> editorial discretion, where good sense and general
>> attribution practices are the primary guidelines, although
>> RFC 2026 Section 10.3.1 has some specific rules regarding
>> acknowledgment of major contributors, copyright, and IPR.
>>
>>
>> On 5/29/15 4:03 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>> John,
>>>
>>>> I hope this does not turn into a long discussion, but I
>>>> believe the parenthetical note about "surprised
>>>> acknowledgment" either needs to be removed
>>>
>>> FWIW, after seeing your note I do agree that it could be
>>> misinterpreted. I'm fine with removing it. But I make no
>>> claims about the preferences of my fellow IESG members
>>> regarding such removal :-)
>>>
>>> Jari
>>>
>>
>>
>