Subject: Acknowledgements section in a RFC (Was: Last Call: 'Matching of Language Tags' to BCP (draft-ietf-ltru-matching)

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 10:02:31 +0200

On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 03:58:15AM +0200,
 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 13 lines which said:

> - Appendix A - some names seem to be missing. I could quote a small 
> score of them?

I do not know if there are written rules about the "Acknowledgements"
or "Credits" section in a RFC. It seems quite variable between the
RFCs. I am mentioned in draft-ietf-ltru-matching-14 for what I regard
as a very small contribution and not in RFC 4408 where I feel that my
contribution is more substantive.

Anyway, these appendices are not normative and are only useful for
historical reasons and to brush the ego :-)

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:03:28 +0200

>contribution is more substantive.

Dear Stephane,
This may seem trivial, but IMHO quoting every contributor is 
important for several key reasons.

- the IETF is made of paid and free volunteers. The reward of the 
free participants is their exposure. If we want top quality 
participants we must acknowledge their contributions.
- every contribution can be a key stone in the final construct. That 
people like Michael Everson, Ned Freed, Lee Gillam, John C. Klensin, 
Felix Sasaki, Michel Suignard, and Tex Texin are not quotted seems 
odd. Others like Scott Hollenbeck and Sam Hartman really helped. What 
about Karen Broome, M.T. Carrasco Benitez, N. Piercei? Inputs or help 
from Brian Carpenter, Ted Hardie, Dylan N. Pierce are real.
- the IPR is to all the co-authors. Every person having contributed a 
word, a concept, a change, positively or negatively is a co-author. 
This also has some importance to show the document is not the work of 
an affinity group (as discussed in RFC 3774) but of a true WG.
- I consider BCP 47 went from an initial error to a technical split 
of the International US Internet from the Multilingual Global 
Network. We now need to insure interroperability between them two 
(for example MGN will accept "en-EU", IANA not). Afrer the PR-action, 
this calls for many experts to accept this is a true IETF proposition.
jfc

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 06:47:49 -0500

Perhaps I lead a sheltered life, but on two of these points...

> This may seem trivial, but IMHO quoting every contributor is important for 
> several key reasons.
>
> - the IETF is made of paid and free volunteers. The reward of the free 
> participants is their exposure. If we want top quality participants we 
> must acknowledge their contributions.

This is a real concern (I am a working group draft editor for a draft where 
probably 30 percent of the e-mail I've received on the draft has been about 
acknowledgements). I thought it was a more serious concern for academics and 
consultants, but am now seeing the same concerns from corporate standards 
types and development engineers in other working groups. I have expressed 
this as a concern in private e-mail, but don't know what the answer is.

> word, a concept, a change, positively or negatively is a co-author. This 
> also has some importance to show the document is not the work of an 
> affinity group (as discussed in RFC 3774) but of a true WG.

In my limited SDO experience, beyond IETF I am most familar with IEEE 802.1 
practice, which is to list "participants" (at least, this is what appears in 
the most recent IEEE 802.1 standard appearing on "Getieee802" at 
http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.1AB-2005.pdf), where the 
list is "membership at the time of approval", and "balloted at various 
times".

Since we have no clue who the "membership" of an IETF working group is, I 
don't know how to do the equivalent thing here.

Spencer

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:10:25 -0400

The basic problem is that there is no way to acknowledge all the 
folks who helped, for the most general definition of 
"contributor".  One would have to keep track of every person who made 
a comment on the mailing list (whether the particular change ended up 
used or not) and everyone who spoke at the meeting.
That is why it is common (but not mandatory) to acknowledge the 
working group that worked on the draft.  This relates to the 
acknowledgement section more than the contributors section.

Acknowledging folks who helped is a good idea.  Particularly for a 
volunteer organization.  But we can not and do not have to be fanatic 
about trying to acknowledge everyone.

On a historical note, the acknowledgements section was intended for 
folks who wrote pieces, or folks who suggested useful ideas, or 
provided significant useful corrections, etc.  The contributors 
section was introduced in conjunction with the effort to reduce the 
set of authors to those who wrote the primary text.  So Contributors 
is usually used for those who wrote sections of text, but not enough 
to be authors.  (The debate about whether we should ahve that 
distinction is a different discussion, please.)  So we actually 
should be trying to be careful and thurough about the "contributors" 
section, since those are folks who wrote noticeably more than a 
single paragraph, and we ought to be able to tell who they are.  Even 
then, mistakes will be made, and as far as I can tell it is not fatal.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 07:47 AM 6/7/2006, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>This is a real concern (I am a working group draft editor for a 
>draft where probably 30 percent of the e-mail I've received on the 
>draft has been about acknowledgements). I thought it was a more 
>serious concern for academics and consultants, but am now seeing the 
>same concerns from corporate standards types and development 
>engineers in other working groups. I have expressed this as a 
>concern in private e-mail, but don't know what the answer is.
>
>>- the IPR is to all the co-authors. Every person having contributed 
>>a word, a concept, a change, positively or negatively is a 
>>co-author. This also has some importance to show the document is 
>>not the work of an affinity group (as discussed in RFC 3774) but of a true WG.
>
>In my limited SDO experience, beyond IETF I am most familar with 
>IEEE 802.1 practice, which is to list "participants" (at least, this 
>is what appears in the most recent IEEE 802.1 standard appearing on 
>"Getieee802" at 
>http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.1AB-2005.pdf), 
>where the list is "membership at the time of approval", and 
>"balloted at various times".
>
>Since we have no clue who the "membership" of an IETF working group 
>is, I don't know how to do the equivalent thing here.
>
>Spencer
>
>

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 15:22:47 +0200

On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:10:25AM -0400,
 Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 86 lines which said:

> the acknowledgements section was intended for folks who wrote
> pieces, or folks who suggested useful ideas, or provided significant
> useful corrections, etc.  The contributors section was introduced in
> conjunction with the effort to reduce the set of authors to those
> who wrote the primary text.  So Contributors is usually used for
> those who wrote sections of text, but not enough to be authors.

These rules are perfectly reasonable (even if they would cost me my
acknowledgment in draft-ietf-ltru-matching) but:

1) They do not seem to be written somewhere. I cannot find them in the
RFCs talking about RFCs (meta-RFCs? IPODs?).

2) They are not currently applied or enforced, as anyone can see when
comparing a RFC with the work in the WG which created it. (Not a big
deal but good to keep in mind when you read an Ack section.)

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:25:22 +0200

Hi,

In all the documents that I participated or edited, I always keep track of
all the inputs and comments received and unless they are just editorial
comments (unless very extensive) include them in the ack section. It is a
simple matter of gratitude and simply to achieve.

For many reasons, including legal ones, all the co-authors should be
explicitly listed with all their details in the authors section. I will say
in alphabetic order ?

One possible way to avoid some of the problems listing many co-authors,
co-editors, etc., in the front page header could be so simple as not having
any one. Being IETF work, at the end, that don't really cares so much.

However, recognizing all kind of contributors (I'm not referring just "all"
the WG members), is a must, as many people contributes with their own time
and it possibly the only way to get some recognition, otherwise we will
start missing more and more contributors sooner or later.

Also, co-authors have the right to as for who should be acknowledged. For
example, several documents I've participated have been only possible thanks
to the funding of research programs, such as national ones or in Europe the
IST-EC one. We have the obligation to get listed as co-authors and have a
citation to that co-funding to be able to get our expenses paid, and nobody
can oppose to that.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:10:25 -0400
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: Acknowledgements section in a RFC (Was: Last Call: 'Matching of
> Language Tags' to BCP (draft-ietf-ltru-matching)
> 

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:36:53 -0400

> deal but good to keep in mind when you read an Ack section.)

They should not be *rules*.  If you try to formalize the definition of
a "contribution", then we get into eternal niggling.  If you feel like
you have been unjustly left out of an acknowledgments section in a
specific draft or RFC, argue your case.  Let's not have yet more
process and procedure and administration for issues that don't affect
running code.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 15:45:02 +0200

On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:36:53AM -0400,
 Scott W Brim <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 17 lines which said:

> If you feel like you have been unjustly left out of an
> acknowledgments section in a specific draft or RFC,

Not at all. (You can read the whole thread to get the details but, as
many people said, the Ack section has no practical consequences.)

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:03:01 +0200

At 15:10 07/06/2006, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>"contributor".  One would have to keep track of every person who 
>made a comment on the mailing list (whether the particular change 
>ended up used or not) and everyone who spoke at the meeting.

Yes. This seems to be exactly what contributing means for the IETF 
mailing list environment, IPR wise. Some additional attention can be 
paid to ADs, reviewers, and IESG Member having worked in a detailed 
appeal (what IESG did for my appeal against the first part of BCP47).

>acknowledgement section more than the contributors section.

In _this_ case we have an additional element which is that a single 
RFC BCP becomes a two RFC BCP. The people who contributed to the 
first RFC and the people who contributed to the former practice 
should be acknowledged. Otherwise, there is no reason why we would have a BCP.

>volunteer organization.  But we can not and do not have to be 
>fanatic about trying to acknowledge everyone.

Full agreement. In _this_ case we also have an additional key need: 
to externally demonstrate an IETF consensus, and its respect by the 
IESG. The currently listed names and the way the IESG does not 
respect the first part of BCP 47 (cf. my appeal) lead external people 
feel this text is biased. I am very concerned because I think this 
was but is no more true (the proposed text failed two IETF LCs, this 
one should not): there is a tough consensus that this text is 
acceptable for the Internationalized ASCII Internet.
jfc

---

From: "Lucy E. Lynch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 09:55:22 -0700 (PDT)

> Perhaps I lead a sheltered life, but on two of these points...

<snip>

>> participants is their exposure. If we want top quality participants we must 
>> acknowledge their contributions.
>

The entire archive of any WG list is saved and available, so comments 
made to the list are easy to track. Thoughtful comments and reviews 
published to the list should serve to document individual opinions and 
contributions. We use list traffic now to document objections, so I 
don't see why we can't use it to document WG member contributions.

>> - the IPR is to all the co-authors. Every person having contributed a word, 
>> a concept, a change, positively or negatively is a co-author. This also has 
>> some importance to show the document is not the work of an affinity group 
>> (as discussed in RFC 3774) but of a true WG.
>

Maybe we can say that this is documented via public posting to the 
list - private comments made off list are just that - private 
comments.

-- 
Lucy E. Lynch 				Academic User Services
Computing Center			University of Oregon
llynch  @darkwing.uoregon.edu		(541) 346-1774

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:12:30 +0900

With respect to the specific document that led to this discussion,
draft-ietf-ltru-matching, I have asked the WG members at
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04975.html
as follws:

   If anybody who has contributed would like their name to be mentioned,
   or thinks that somebody else's name is missing, please don't hesitate
   to say so, or to contact the editors or chairs directly.

I am not aware of any such requests up to now, but maybe my co-chair
or the editors have received some.

Just for completeness, and because this is due to a Last Call comment
brought up on this mailing list, I would like to extend the above request
to this list: If you think that you should be listed in the Acknowledgements
section of draft-ietf-ltru-matching, please contact the editors or
the chairs of the LTRU WG.

Regards,     Martin.

>historical reasons and to brush the ego :-)

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]