Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 30 May 2015 00:44 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 783701ACD29 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2015 17:44:37 -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 KOSti88lqfSl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2015 17:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.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 15B8A1ACD03 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2015 17:44:36 -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 1YyUt6-000H4a-3y; Fri, 29 May 2015 20:44:32 -0400
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 20:44:27 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors
Message-ID: <C819807A68C21E2C2FE9D9AF@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <5568FE28.1090600@gmail.com>
References: <20150529205551.22495.73800.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2F99A0C05DFEE698A643FC97@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <938E070C-A69A-4D37-9B33-3CB07E09595C@piuha.net> <5568F568.9060407@bogus.com> <5568FE28.1090600@gmail.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/abxlWE5pCrDkM95ceVECpsyIVYY>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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: Sat, 30 May 2015 00:44:37 -0000

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@gmail.com> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>