Re: The RFC Acknowledgement

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

On 2/10/13, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> wrote:
> At 11:04 PM 2/8/2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>>The problem is that most people don't complain or don't like to
>>complain, that is reality, they will leave such society easily.
>
> Are we talking about the same IETF?

Yes, IETF considers all inputs even if accidently are contributions,
read the NOTE WELL.

>
> Seriously, this group as a whole does not tend to shy away from making their
> issues known, and mostly doesn't take their bat and ball and leave if things
> don't go their way.

not leave if things don't go their way, they leave if things don't go
in the right/fare direction.

Do you mean all contributors in IETF (i.e. who discuss and make input
even if not significant) like to continue participating? people leave
only when they find out that their volunteering input things may go in
the ways of profit sectors.

>
> I'm joining this thread a little late  (I have read the later comments) and
> I want to push back on pretty much any formal requirement or common model
> for including people in the acknowledgements sections.  I believe this needs
> to be left to the document editor and to the chair, and for individual
> contributions, never pushed to an AD for resolution.

Then from your opinion to be fare, I RECOMMEND that the RFC-section
SHOULD be changed to *Authors' Acknowledgements*. Please note that the
RFC is owned by the IETF so the section of ACK should not be only
thanks of the authors or editors or Chairs, otherwise SHOULD be
mentioned in title. IETF considers all inputs related to I-D as a
contribution, please read the NOTE WELL. So do we understand that IETF
is impolite with some of its contributors/workers?

>
> I have been told anecdotally that some companies or organizations provide
> bonuses or bounties of different values for employees that get their names
> on a ID or RFC as document editor, author, co-author or contributor (in the
> acknowledgements section).   I'm not sure of the reality with respect to
> this anecdote, but I'd hate to find some sort of mandatory "thank you" being
> required which might result in additional comments that add little or
> nothing to the process simply so someone can get a bonus.  It's simply not
> the IETF way.
>

It is not about bonuses, it is about truth I-D's influences and the
way the IETF process and work progresses. Do you think an I-D
progresses only if experts comment and contribute? don't think so,
best ideas come from discussions of different level of experiences
including zero,  :-)

We are in the IETF which has a NOTE WELL, do you suggest to change it
or change the IETF ways of using others information? I don't want to
change that. IMO a *thank you* for IETF participants SHOULD be a good
practice for IETF and its outputs or documents, because it reflects
reality.

AB