Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

Since I believe that IESG statements are useful for documenting what the
IESG thinks it will do in specific sitiuations, I like them to be as
precise as possible, and as free as possible from text that:

- Doesn't help identifying which case it is talking about
- Doesn't help specifying what the IESG thinks it will do.

This statement is about "surprised authors". (I like the phrase, it's
memorable.)
Acknowledgements sections are a different matter, and thus the
parenthetical remark about them falls clearly under the scope of
"removable material" above.

Let's get rid of it. If the IESG wants to say something about
acknowledgements sections, let them write another note.

(And: Thanks to the IESG for getting a statement out!)



Den 30. mai 2015 00:24, skrev John C Klensin:
> 
> 
> --On Friday, May 29, 2015 13:55 -0700 IESG Secretary
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> The IESG is planning to publish an IESG statement concerning
>> the authorship of Internet drafts. This statement is only
>> focused on the situation where an IETF participant feels
>> he/she has been erroneously listed as an author on a draft.
>> The statement can be seen here:
>>
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/SurprisedAutho
>> rs
> 
> Hi.
> 
> I hope this does not turn into a long discussion, but I believe
> the parenthetical note about "surprised acknowledgment" either
> needs to be removed (since this statement isn't really about it
> and does not provide a remedy, default or otherwise) or
> clarified.   Acknowledgments raise several issues that have
> caused controversy in the past.  In summary, our IPR policies
> are usually interpreted as requiring acknowledgment when someone
> has made a significant Contribution to a document [1].  Those
> policies are about Contributions, not about whether someone
> agrees with all, part, or none of the resulting document.
> Certainly an acknowledgment should not claim endorsement or
> support for a document that the person involved does not
> support, but the presumed requirement to acknowledge
> Contributions may not allow a Contributor to opt out entirely
> from being acknowledged.
> 
> My sense is that we have not been consistent about resolution of
> cases in which people have objected to having their
> Contributions acknowledged in a document that they do not
> support.  If this statement is going to address the "surprised"
> acknowledgment issue [2], it is going to be necessary to
> establish policy in that area, policy that may require opening
> and either clarifying our fundamental IPR policies and the RFC
> Editor's interpretation of them or trying to produce a detailed
> policy on acknowledgments [3].
> 
> best,
>     john
> 
> 
> 
> [1] There have also been controversies associated with people
> not being acknowledged who think they should be.  Those
> controversies and associated questions do not appear to interact
> with this proposed statement.
> 
> [2]  I believe that "surprised acknowledgments" are
> indistinguishable in practice from "unwanted" ones.  With both
> acknowledgments and authorship, if actual editors notify the
> offended party in advance about what they are going to do and
> that party objects, the same issues exist whether there is
> actual surprise or not.
> 
> [3] Personally, I would discourage the latter in favor of
> continued reliance on author discretion, discussion within WGs,
> etc., and application of courtesy and good sense.   Trying to
> formulate a specific policy would probably take us on a tour of
> ratholes and special cases and end up satisfying no one and
> leaving other cases unresolved.
>