Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 30 May 2015 09:03 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 CE6E21A1A32 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 May 2015 02:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, 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 0mTLZCh29kXL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 May 2015 02:03:40 -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 739ED1A1A31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 May 2015 02:03:40 -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 1Yycg6-000J1b-Oz; Sat, 30 May 2015 05:03:38 -0400
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 05:03:33 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors
Message-ID: <719861006CF5B31670530E9E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <55695EAC.80002@cisco.com>
References: <20150529205551.22495.73800.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2F99A0C05DFEE698A643FC97@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <55695EAC.80002@cisco.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/liFDiwb1ZMZpHoNq-Vd5v0B8MtM>
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 09:03:42 -0000
--On Saturday, May 30, 2015 08:54 +0200 Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote: > One reason why a pointer to the surprised acknowledgment was > added is for statements such as > > Thanks to <insert names> for their valuable comments and > support on > the initial idea of this document Benoit, Understood and I had guessed at that cause and intent. The difficulty is that we have at least four other cases, only one of which I don't believe has actually occurred. Yet.: (i) Joe Blow Contributes large blocks of text to a document. The IPR rules, at least as some of us understand them, require that his Contribution be acknowledged. Joe doesn't like some or all of the resulting document, which still includes his text, and insists that he is surprised and that his name should be removed. (ii) Sally Bloggs says some things on the WG mailing list that are sufficiently confused and/or outrageous that the WG concludes the document needs considerable clarification. While Sally does not provide the clarifying text, she does make comments on it. Sally is still in the rough relative to WG and IETF consensus. The authors conclude that Sally's comments resulted in considerable improvements to the document that would not have occurred otherwise and choose to acknowledge it. Sally would like her name removed. (iii) The authors include a broad acknowledgment of the WG instead of, or in addition to, listing particular names. Consensus in the WG was very rough and remains controversial and some of those who are in the rough insist that the WG acknowledgment be removed, drastically rewritten, or that they be excluded by name. (iv) Someone mouthed off on the WG list or during Last Call and then insists that they were surprised to not be acknowledged and insist that their names be added. Coming back to your example, note the huge difference between it and Thanks to <insert names> for their valuable comments and support during the development of this document even though they did not fully agree with the WG's conclusion That may or may not be appropriate, but it is much less likely to be deliberately misleading. As Carsten noted, there is clearly a principle that one should not lie in documents. I don't know whether the overall text would be improved by saying that explicitly. But, as far as the acknowledgments are concerned and very much unlike the "false claim of authorship" situation, there are many cases and a lot of them involve judgment calls. I suggest that the IESG should either remove the comment (and address the issues elsewhere as needed) or put in more language, either opening and exploring the can of worms or making sure that the acknowledgment case being referred to is appropriately clearly-defined and narrow. I also suggest that either of the latter two will be time-consuming so, if the IESG is anxious to get this out quickly, the pragmatic solution may be to remove the parenthetical note and, if desired, include a forward-pointing statement or reference about the acknowledgment cases. best, john
- 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