Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 29 May 2015 22:24 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B771A88A0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i31qXWKoIfWA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC7B41A8898 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1YyShP-000GnT-UW for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 29 May 2015 18:24:19 -0400
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:24:14 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors
Message-ID: <2F99A0C05DFEE698A643FC97@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150529205551.22495.73800.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20150529205551.22495.73800.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ZYTVrh-q9BtXVjDXzYafeXkayL8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 22:24:22 -0000
--On Friday, May 29, 2015 13:55 -0700 IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> 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.
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Toerless Eckert
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Jari Arkko
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors joel jaeggli
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Eliot Lear
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Benoit Claise
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Carsten Bormann
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Benoit Claise
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Harald Alvestrand
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors David Farmer
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Eliot Lear
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Eliot Lear
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Harald Alvestrand
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Eliot Lear
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John Levine
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Melinda Shore
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Melinda Shore
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Randy Bush
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John Levine
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Ted Lemon
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John R Levine
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors S Moonesamy
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Joe Abley
- RE: IESG Statement on surprised authors Tony Hain
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Ted Lemon
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John Levine
- RE: IESG Statement on surprised authors Tony Hain
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Warren Kumari
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Ted Lemon
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Warren Kumari
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Stewart Bryant
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Loa Andersson
- Re: proposed surprise hack, was IESG Statement on… John Levine
- Re: proposed surprise hack, was IESG Statement on… Ted Lemon
- Re: proposed surprise hack, was IESG Statement on… Warren Kumari
- Re: proposed surprise hack, was IESG Statement on… John R Levine