--On Monday, March 25, 2013 11:59 -0400 Scott Kitterman
<sc...@kitterman.com> wrote:
>> 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.
Yes, Scott. And I've been saying the latter, rather
consistently I think, for years.
However, I quite deliberately said "perhaps", not "we should
rush out and do something". Equally deliberately, I said
"guidance" not "a bunch of new rules and mechanisms for
enforcing them". Especially given the interaction between
acknowledgments and IPR policies, a little general guidance
might be worthwhile even though I would worry about the risk of
is being turned into rules.
I would definitely consider Scott Brim's suggestion to be within
the range of acceptable guidance. So would a clear statement
that Acknowledgments sections and their content are entirely at
the discretion of the listed authors/editors, even though the
latter might require some adjustments in IPR policy.
If someone feels like doing the work, I'd recommend a discussion
(off the IETF list) with the IESG or selected ADs about whether
a draft would be welcome and how it should be handled.
Abdussalam, I would suggest that you _not_ try to take the lead
on that unless you can do so as a collector and careful and
balanced interpreter of community ideas, not as simply an
expression of your own, obviously passionate, beliefs on the
subject.
john
