At 15:10 07/06/2006, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
