Re: [Teas] Regarding Acknowledgements in draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet

[Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>]

Adrian, Hi!

Thanks for your time and consideration in sharing that.

And yes, we agree that we have a different interpretation of the events
(/emails/notes) from early last year --  while we believe the text produced
was a by-product of a collaborative effort, your view is that it was an
individual effort.

We will also do our best to learn from this and consider the matter closed.

Best Regards,
- Pavan and Tarek
ps: Regarding point 2 below -- when someone spends hours collaborating with
you on producing text and ask (out of courtesy) if it is okay to include it
in their document, you either respond with an ack or a nack. You will often
find that ghosting them leaves things open for interpretation. It is a good
thing that you keep copies of all emails -- when you get a chance, do look
for an email dated June 1st from Tarek where we asked if it was okay to add
text in the document (and, also a follow-up prod dated June 23rd); this was
before the TEAS 111 meeting in July where we explicitly stated our
intention to add this content and heard no objections.


On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 8:04 AM Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks for coming back on this point, Tarek,
>
>
>
> Our memories of what happened last April are obviously different. However,
> I kept copies of all emails and have my notes of our conversations. More
> importantly, I have the various versions of the text that I wrote and sent
> to you.
>
>
>
> There are only three points here:
>
>    1. I wrote text and drew a figure that you have included almost
>    without change in your document. It would be correct and polite to
>    acknowledge that contribution not as “discussions” but as “wrote most of
>    the text that forms Section 3”.
>    2. If you want to use material that someone writes, you ask their
>    permission. You will often find they say yes.
>    3. The purpose of our discussions in Spring and Summer last year, from
>    my point of view, was to help me formulate an architecture for inclusion in
>    Section 6.1 of draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices that accommodated your
>    aspirations as well as those of others who were talking to me (I mentioned
>    this at the TEAS meeting at IETF-111). A substantial part of the problem
>    was the terminology, while the functional steps were also significant. The
>    result of those discussions led me to write the words that appear in -05 in
>    October: they, and the figure, derive from the early version that you have
>    included in your draft, but they (you’ll see) don’t share many of the same
>    words (noting that, at the TEAS interim in September, it was noted that
>    offline discussions had been happening between the authors of “draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn
>    and related drafts, and draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet and related drafts”
>    and it was agreed to leave out the work flow.
>
>
>
> So, where to go from here? Well, you have noted my point. I have learnt
> from it, and that was valuable for me, so thank you.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> 10.
>
>
>
> Thanks to the authors for acknowledging me for the "detailed discussions
>
> that led to Section 3" of this document. On the other hand, no thanks for
>
> failing to acknowledge the material I wrote and that has been included
>
> in this document. This is poor behaviour that should be an embarrassment
>
> to all with their names on the front page. It really makes one think
>
> about who to have conversations with and who to try to help.
>
>
>
> ***
>
>
>
> This comment has caught us by total surprise. We have always given your
> inputs the highest regard and would continue to do so. We don’t know what
> has caused this outpour, but we would like to apologize if we have
> inadvertently caused you any grief or disappointment. We would like to hold
> ourselves to the highest level of integrity and would ask to be held
> accountable if there has been any hint of poor conduct/behavior.
>
>
>
> We sincerely believe we have taken every chance to acknowledge the
> collaboration we have had with you on this. We revisited (multiple times)
> all the communications/emails we’ve had with you, and we are still stumped
> by this allegation of “poor behavior”.
>
>
>
> Section 3 in this document was put together based on the discussions that
> we have had with you, and we are grateful for that and acknowledge the same
> in Section 10. If you remember, we have also thanked you and mentioned this
> collaboration in previous TEAS WG session updates. In the TEAS 111 session,
> we even stated our plans to incorporate the steps that we compiled together
> in the document (*Please refer to Slide 4 of*
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/slides-111-teas-07-realizing-network-slices-in-ipmpls-networks-01.pdf
> ).
>
>
>
> While it should be acknowledged that the text (bar a few exceptions) was
> written by you; it should also be acknowledged (and we’re sure you would
> also agree) that all inputs for this text came from us as you were
> collecting notes about our solution. We hope you do remember the multiple
> sessions with us which shaped the PPT slide (from scratch) that ended up
> being the input for the ASCII drawing and the corresponding text. You may
> also remember that we urged you to include some aspects of this in the
> framework document. You took the portions (from the content that we arrived
> at together) that are relevant to the framework and included it to the
> framework document. We took the portions that are relevant to the solution
> that is being proposed by us and included it in our solution document – and
> we made sure we acknowledge your contribution to Section 3.  Section 3 is
> meant to illustrate how the solution fits into the architecture. It sure
> needs to be refined further (as you have pointed out), but it is an
> integral part of this document.
>
>
>
> In hindsight, if there is one thing we could have done differently (and
> we’ll learn from this), we should have explicitly checked if you would have
> liked to be listed as a contributor.  The truth is that you had already
> distanced yourself from this solution (for reasons that only you know) in
> the months leading up to the publication of revision 04 (which was the
> first time this section was added to the document). And that led us to
> believe that you were no longer interested in contributing to it.
>
>
>
> We are open to suggestions on your preference to resolve this matter.
>
> It goes without saying, we’d be thrilled if you would like to continue to
> work on this draft.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Tarek and Pavan
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>