Re: [rfc-i] acknowledging reviewers name in RFCs

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 31 May 2019 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A969F120198 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 c76kErjRCAXH for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CC4C12011D for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 502BDB80BD7; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D22B80BD6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lvn5Zr4m5hbq for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AFCEB80BD0 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B2038185; Fri, 31 May 2019 11:05:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 9A8B1E0A; Fri, 31 May 2019 11:06:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98732DAF; Fri, 31 May 2019 11:06:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <ae24bebf-3fec-3897-c215-5553dee03693@alum.mit.edu>
References: <30895.1559243194@localhost> <ae24bebf-3fec-3897-c215-5553dee03693@alum.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 11:06:20 -0400
Message-ID: <14434.1559315180@localhost>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] acknowledging reviewers name in RFCs
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4759398404535962517=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
    >> I'd like to have a standard way to show who was:
    >> 1) WG chair and AD stick-handling of a document.
    >> 2) Document Shepherd
    >> 3) Area reviews, and detailed individual reviews
    >>
    >> While many authors put many of these things into Acknowledgements, it's not
    >> in a standard format, and it's not easily pulled out in the XML.
    >> (Such as by Jari's scripts)

    > Please keep in mind that some people are very concerned with being
    > mentioned. If this isn't well defined they may try to game the
    > system. Thoroughness of reviews varies widely. I don't know how to draw a
    > line regarding what is sufficient to get a reference.

yes, I'm aware that some people really want/need that entry in
Acknowledgments.  It would be nice to have some psychological understanding
of if there are differing motivations for this, but...

Authors do this based upon a variety of criteria, and I'm not suggesting a
specific set of rules for these kinds of acknowledgements.  So it's only
really "detailed individual reviews" that are at stake here.

I care about getting the details out in a mechanical way.
I think that making it easier for an AD or WG chair to point at a list of
documents produced under the "guidance" will make it easier to get ongoing support.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest