I like this draft, but I suggest that it apply to ALL RFCs (not just the IETF stream). Eliot On 5/30/15 2:02 AM, Brian E Carpenter 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 >>> >> >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature