On Monday, March 25, 2013 11:54:10 AM John C Klensin wrote: > --On Monday, March 25, 2013 08:38 -0700 Dave Crocker > > <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > > Folks, > > > > There have been more than 25 postings on this sub-thread, and > > I don't see any indication that it covers a 'problem' in the > > IETF, or at least not one that has any constituency behind it. > > Dave, > > I mostly agree with your analysis. At the same time, a fairly > wide range of beliefs and opinions about what and who should > appear in acknowledgments has emerged, including the idea that > acknowledgments can be used to "buy" participation or reviews. > I personally find the latter idea abhorrent, but that just > indicates that there is some spectrum of opinions. > > So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about > acknowledgments would be in order. If so, Abdussalam has done > us something of a favor by raising the issue explicitly (no > matter what various of us think of his methods). If such > guidance is needed, a lengthy discussion on the IETF list is > almost certainly not the best way to put it together, so we > agree about what should happen now even if not completely about > the reasons or situation.
It does not necessarily follow that because there is significant variation, more guidance is needed. Personally, I think there should be a strong bias against more bureaucracy around non-technical aspects of IETF work. Scott K
