Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Fri, 29 May 2015 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 8236D1A9097 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2015 16:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 Jzpl1WaiRuUQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2015 16:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 054D71A8F4F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2015 16:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-aye.local ([172.56.42.62]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t4TNPXnx015495 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 May 2015 23:25:46 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Subject: Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
References: <20150529205551.22495.73800.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2F99A0C05DFEE698A643FC97@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <938E070C-A69A-4D37-9B33-3CB07E09595C@piuha.net>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <5568F568.9060407@bogus.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 16:25:28 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <938E070C-A69A-4D37-9B33-3CB07E09595C@piuha.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4XgvvTPSUHbVgkO6RGqNNHfuxBCFS7OxG"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xbQdOacotVXYiDu61rdGnv5ptyo>
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: Fri, 29 May 2015 23:25:50 -0000

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
>