Re: [lisp] Fwd: FW: IESG Statement on Internet Draft Authorship

Acknowledgements are a different and more complicated question.
Our formal policy is that if someone contributes, they should be 
acknowledged.  If they do not support the work, the acknowledgment 
should be written carefully so as not to imply their support.

There are rare cases (as we had) where someone may be left off the 
acknowledgements by their request.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/12/15 12:43 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> I’ve also seen this problem when non-consenting names appear in the Acknowledgement section.
>
> Dino
>
>> On Jun 12, 2015, at 9:33 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>>
>> FYI.  I am not aware of any instance of this problem in our working group, but you should know the policy anyway.
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: FW: IESG Statement on Internet Draft Authorship
>> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:35:53 +0000
>> From: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com>
>> To: rtg-chairs@ietf.org <rtg-chairs@ietf.org>
>>
>> Not everyone pays attention to the ietf-list, you may want to distribute on your wg lists-
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: IETF-Announce [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG
>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:32 PM
>> To: IETF Announcement List
>> Subject: IESG Statement on Internet Draft Authorship
>>
>> The IESG has received some reports of IETF participants having been
>> listed as document authors on drafts without their consent ("surprised
>> authorship"). In some cases, the surprised authors had never seen the
>> draft that surprised them. It appears that some draft authors think that
>> including other participants as authors is a way to show support for the
>> concepts in the document and gain acceptance for those concepts. This
>> may be thought of as especially useful if the additional authors are
>> established IETF participants.
>>
>> Adding names of IETF participants who did not actually work on a
>> proposal might seem to be a low-risk way of demonstrating "support", but
>> this is very clearly not an acceptable practice: no one should ever be
>> added to the list of authors on a draft unless that person has consented
>> to it and has contributed significantly to the development of the draft.
>>
>> The practice of adding surprised authors is
>>
>>   - not in line with the IETF culture, where it's the technical issues
>>     that matter, not who the authors or supporters are;
>>   - unethical, as it is wrong to claim support from someone who has not
>>     consented to it;
>>   - misleading in terms of support; and
>>   - problematic in terms of IPR disclosures (BCPs 78 and 79).
>>
>> To emphasize this last point, the person submitting an Internet-Draft is
>> asserting that "This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance
>> with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79". A submitter who has not
>> discussed this with all the listed authors cannot make that claim, and
>> this can cause procedural and legal problems later.
>>
>> All authors need to be aware of the RFC Editor's statement on
>> authorship [1], especially as it relates to responsibility for the
>> document's contents. The IESG strongly recommends that all drafts have
>> explicit permission from all authors to have their names listed before
>> the draft is submitted.
>>
>> If you feel that you are impacted by the above issues, please talk to
>> your Area Director or contact the IESG by sending email to
>> <iesg@ietf.org>. As the administrator of the I-D repository (regardless
>> of the source or intended stream for the draft), the IESG will handle
>> each case of disputed authorship on a case-by-base basis. All reports
>> will be investigated, and substantiated claims will be met with
>> corrective actions.
>>
>> The default corrective action will be the replacement of the offending
>> draft with a "disputed authorship" tombstone. Such a tombstone would:
>>
>>   - Be published as a successor to the offending draft,
>>   - Have the offended IETF participant listed as the only author,
>>   - Will state "The author listed on this tombstone Internet-Draft has
>>     stated that he/she should not have been listed as an author on the
>>     previous version. The IETF considers being added as an author
>>     without one's permission as unethical. The default behaviour of the
>>     IESG in such cases is to approve replacement of the offending draft
>>     with this tombstone. Please direct any queries to the author listed
>>     here."
>>
>> [1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2015-May/008869.html
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> lisp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>