Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)
Hi Carsten, In general, I agree we don't force authors/owners of documents, as tradition in the world and in all reasonable organisation, we never force any author to be thankful. But don't forget the situation in IETF is different and the documents are different as well. The document is a IETF document (not individual) and the authors are not the only owners of the I-D as in other documents outside IETF (we name them editors because IETF works/documents are shared for its better publication not the authors' publication). The documents were called for volunteers in IETF to participate and review, why the IETF request that if it does not include them. In any I-D it is a personal statement for the IETF not the authors, this is my beleive, otherwise why I should participate/volunteer if i am not dealing with IETF business (don't want to participate in private or public companies business), AB On 3/25/13, Carsten Bormann wrote: >> Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments >> sections varies widely between RFCs. Some are fairly complete, some are >> fairly vague and incomplete, and some are between. > > Bingo. It is up to the sole discretion of the document authors what they > want to list in the Acknowledgements section. > > Trying to force people to thank other people strikes me as completely > misguided. > > (That said, as a contributor, I have certain expectations of document > authors here, but these are *not* actionable in any sense.) As an author, I > sometimes have forgotten to include people who made contributions worth a > mention, and I would have been spared the shame if the contributor would > have alerted me to that at the right occasion. As a contributor, I have > never felt the need to pressure an author to include me, though. > > It does make sense to relay some common sense of what is expected in an > Acknowledgements section to new authors. > I don't know we do this at the moment. > >> If you feel like you should be listed in the Acknowledgements section of a >> WG document due to your contribution, and you're not listed in WG Last >> Call, ask the WG to be included. 'Nuff said. > > I'd modify this to "ask the authors". > Ask, as in "shouldn't the Acknowledgement section be updated", not demand as > in "I have an **g right to be in there". > > The contents of the Acknowledgment section is about as much subject to WG > consensus as the authors' street addresses. > > Grüße, Carsten > >
Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)
On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:14 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >> Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments >> sections varies widely between RFCs. Some are fairly complete, some are >> fairly vague and incomplete, and some are between. > > Bingo. It is up to the sole discretion of the document authors what they > want to list in the Acknowledgements section. +/- 0. For personal documents, it is up to the author; for WG documents, it is up to the WG. Some WGs are acknowledgment-heavy, some are not. I have been in WGs which used "you might get listed in the Acknowledgements" as a tool to get better reviews. It seemed cheesy, but it worked. > The contents of the Acknowledgment section is about as much subject to WG > consensus as the authors' street addresses. Disagree. WG documents are WG documents. If the author/editor doesn't want to do what the WG consensus is about the document, the author/editor can walk away. --Paul Hoffman
Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)
+1. My view as well. I will add I think it generally means there will a problem in a WG if an AUTHOR has issues with its WG participants, enough to a point he/she begins to ignore them - despite all the input they provided, included the indirect ones that help mold others to think and chime in. On 3/25/2013 3:14 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments sections varies widely between RFCs. Some are fairly complete, some are fairly vague and incomplete, and some are between. Bingo. It is up to the sole discretion of the document authors what they want to list in the Acknowledgements section. Trying to force people to thank other people strikes me as completely misguided. (That said, as a contributor, I have certain expectations of document authors here, but these are *not* actionable in any sense.) As an author, I sometimes have forgotten to include people who made contributions worth a mention, and I would have been spared the shame if the contributor would have alerted me to that at the right occasion. As a contributor, I have never felt the need to pressure an author to include me, though. It does make sense to relay some common sense of what is expected in an Acknowledgements section to new authors. I don't know we do this at the moment. If you feel like you should be listed in the Acknowledgements section of a WG document due to your contribution, and you're not listed in WG Last Call, ask the WG to be included. 'Nuff said. I'd modify this to "ask the authors". Ask, as in "shouldn't the Acknowledgement section be updated", not demand as in "I have an **g right to be in there". The contents of the Acknowledgment section is about as much subject to WG consensus as the authors' street addresses. Grüße, Carsten
Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)
On Mar 25, 2013, at 15:38, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> The contents of the Acknowledgment section is about as much subject to WG >> consensus as the authors' street addresses. > > Disagree. WG documents are WG documents. If the author/editor doesn't want to > do what the WG consensus is about the document, the author/editor can walk > away. The WG can decide to have a "contributors" section or whatever it wants. The acknowledgements section, however, is, very much like the street address, the authors' thing, and entirely up to their conscience. (And, yes, the authors can certainly agree to be part of any "scheme" that uses the acknowledgements section as a Skinner box, if they want to. But I never again want to read a justification by an author why a particular person is not listed in the acknowledgements section. Never. And that's my last statement on this thread.) Grüße, Carsten
Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)
It seems to me that you are setting up by assertion a standard that has never applied to this community. Having said that, if we want to go down this path, then we could do what groups like IEEE do. Remove all authors names, all personal acknowledgements, etc. The work is simply the product of the committee. I would prefer not to go down that path. But if the alternative is copying every name from every person reported to have commented on the draft in the minutes or shown in the archive to have sent an email about the draft into a meaningless acknowledgements section, then the pure committee view would seem more sensible. Yours, Joel On 3/25/2013 8:36 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: Hi Carsten, In general, I agree we don't force authors/owners of documents, as tradition in the world and in all reasonable organisation, we never force any author to be thankful. But don't forget the situation in IETF is different and the documents are different as well. The document is a IETF document (not individual) and the authors are not the only owners of the I-D as in other documents outside IETF (we name them editors because IETF works/documents are shared for its better publication not the authors' publication). The documents were called for volunteers in IETF to participate and review, why the IETF request that if it does not include them. In any I-D it is a personal statement for the IETF not the authors, this is my beleive, otherwise why I should participate/volunteer if i am not dealing with IETF business (don't want to participate in private or public companies business), AB On 3/25/13, Carsten Bormann wrote: Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments sections varies widely between RFCs. Some are fairly complete, some are fairly vague and incomplete, and some are between. Bingo. It is up to the sole discretion of the document authors what they want to list in the Acknowledgements section. Trying to force people to thank other people strikes me as completely misguided. (That said, as a contributor, I have certain expectations of document authors here, but these are *not* actionable in any sense.) As an author, I sometimes have forgotten to include people who made contributions worth a mention, and I would have been spared the shame if the contributor would have alerted me to that at the right occasion. As a contributor, I have never felt the need to pressure an author to include me, though. It does make sense to relay some common sense of what is expected in an Acknowledgements section to new authors. I don't know we do this at the moment. If you feel like you should be listed in the Acknowledgements section of a WG document due to your contribution, and you're not listed in WG Last Call, ask the WG to be included. 'Nuff said. I'd modify this to "ask the authors". Ask, as in "shouldn't the Acknowledgement section be updated", not demand as in "I have an **g right to be in there". The contents of the Acknowledgment section is about as much subject to WG consensus as the authors' street addresses. Grüße, Carsten
Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)
On 3/25/2013 9:35 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: The WG can decide to have a "contributors" section or whatever it wants. The acknowledgements section, however, is, very much like the street address, the authors' thing, and entirely up to their conscience. Sorry, no. It is not a collection of objective data, like the author contact information. It is a value statement about people. Citing a 'contributors' section is invention on-the-fly. It's not irrational, but it is not established IETF practice. Again, we don't have a current problem. So let's not fix it... Most authors are actually editors. They are the working group's intelligent pen. Even when the author is the primary source of creation in the working group, the point behind having working groups is for the document to be a product of that group, not of the author. That authors and working groups often misunderstand this is a different concern, but it's important that we not institutionalize more independence of authors. For example would it be reasonable for an author to have the acknowledgements section say: This document was produced in spite of the disruptive and damaging contributions of Participant X and Participant Y. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)
> "Dave" == Dave Crocker writes: Dave> Citing a 'contributors' section is invention on-the-fly. It's Dave> not irrational, but it is not established IETF practice. I believe contributors sections to be IETF practice. As an example take a look at http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html In particular the authors vs contributors section. When I was on the IESG, the IESG policy was consistent with the RFC Editor's policy in this regard.
Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > It seems to me that you are setting up by assertion a standard that has > never applied to this community. > > Having said that, if we want to go down this path, then we could do what > groups like IEEE do. Remove all authors names, all personal > acknowledgements, etc. The work is simply the product of the committee. I > would prefer not to go down that path. I don't see how it is possible for the IETF to copy the IEEE policy at the WG level. (And I agree that it would not be desirable to do so.) IEEE standards (at least in IEEE 802) do not have any title page author(s) but do have the complete list of 802... WG voting members in the WG that approved the document, then the complete list of IEEE Sponsor Ballot voters that approved the document, then the complete list of IEEE Standards Association Board members when the Standards Board approved the document. For example, just glancing at IEEE Std. 802.1BR-2012, there is prefatory information with the following sub-intros under the overall heading "Participants": "At the time this standard was approved, the IEEE 802.1 Working Group had the following voting members:" (So, for example, I am listed although I don't believe I submitted a comment on that document.) "The following members of the individual balloting committee voted on this standard. Balloters may have voted for approval, disapproval, or abstention." and "When the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved this standard on 14 May 2012, it had the following membership:" The first of these lists specifically distinguishes the WG and task group Officers and the Editor involved in the document. Note that, other than perhaps the listing of the Editor, these lists have nothing to do with who supported or opposed the document or who submitted or drafted text or comments. They are purely formalistic lists based on status, although in practice, most of those who commented or drafted text would be included. Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com > But if the > alternative is copying > every name from every person reported to have commented on the draft in the > minutes or shown in the archive to have sent an email about the draft into a > meaningless acknowledgements section, then the pure committee view would > seem more sensible. > > Yours, > Joel > > > On 3/25/2013 8:36 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >> >> Hi Carsten, >> >> In general, I agree we don't force authors/owners of documents, as >> tradition in the world and in all reasonable organisation, we never >> force any author to be thankful. But don't forget the situation in >> IETF is different and the documents are different as well. >> >> The document is a IETF document (not individual) and the authors are >> not the only owners of the I-D as in other documents outside IETF (we >> name them editors because IETF works/documents are shared for its >> better publication not the authors' publication). The documents were >> called for volunteers in IETF to participate and review, why the IETF >> request that if it does not include them. >> >> In any I-D it is a personal statement for the IETF not the authors, >> this is my beleive, otherwise why I should participate/volunteer if i >> am not dealing with IETF business (don't want to participate in >> private or public companies business), >> >> AB >> >> On 3/25/13, Carsten Bormann wrote: Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments sections varies widely between RFCs. Some are fairly complete, some are fairly vague and incomplete, and some are between. >>> >>> >>> Bingo. It is up to the sole discretion of the document authors what they >>> want to list in the Acknowledgements section. >>> >>> Trying to force people to thank other people strikes me as completely >>> misguided. >>> >>> (That said, as a contributor, I have certain expectations of document >>> authors here, but these are *not* actionable in any sense.) As an >>> author, I >>> sometimes have forgotten to include people who made contributions worth a >>> mention, and I would have been spared the shame if the contributor would >>> have alerted me to that at the right occasion. As a contributor, I have >>> never felt the need to pressure an author to include me, though. >>> >>> It does make sense to relay some common sense of what is expected in an >>> Acknowledgements section to new authors. >>> I don't know we do this at the moment. >>> If you feel like you should be listed in the Acknowledgements section of a WG document due to your contribution, and you're not listed in WG Last Call, ask the WG to be included. 'Nuff said. >>> >>> >>> I'd modify this to "ask the authors". >>> Ask, as in "shouldn't the Acknowledgement section be up
RE: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)
You mean going 'Chatham House rule'? (i'm just commenting on this thread so that when it results in an I-D recommending how to write acks, I get acked...) Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern [j...@joelhalpern.com] Sent: 25 March 2013 16:35 To: Abdussalam Baryun Cc: Carsten Bormann; Paul Hoffman; ietf Subject: Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections) It seems to me that you are setting up by assertion a standard that has never applied to this community. Having said that, if we want to go down this path, then we could do what groups like IEEE do. Remove all authors names, all personal acknowledgements, etc. The work is simply the product of the committee. I would prefer not to go down that path. But if the alternative is copying every name from every person reported to have commented on the draft in the minutes or shown in the archive to have sent an email about the draft into a meaningless acknowledgements section, then the pure committee view would seem more sensible. Yours, Joel On 3/25/2013 8:36 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > Hi Carsten, > > In general, I agree we don't force authors/owners of documents, as > tradition in the world and in all reasonable organisation, we never > force any author to be thankful. But don't forget the situation in > IETF is different and the documents are different as well. > > The document is a IETF document (not individual) and the authors are > not the only owners of the I-D as in other documents outside IETF (we > name them editors because IETF works/documents are shared for its > better publication not the authors' publication). The documents were > called for volunteers in IETF to participate and review, why the IETF > request that if it does not include them. > > In any I-D it is a personal statement for the IETF not the authors, > this is my beleive, otherwise why I should participate/volunteer if i > am not dealing with IETF business (don't want to participate in > private or public companies business), > > AB > > On 3/25/13, Carsten Bormann wrote: >>> Further, the IETF should acknowledge that the contents of Acknowledgments >>> sections varies widely between RFCs. Some are fairly complete, some are >>> fairly vague and incomplete, and some are between. >> >> Bingo. It is up to the sole discretion of the document authors what they >> want to list in the Acknowledgements section. >> >> Trying to force people to thank other people strikes me as completely >> misguided. >> >> (That said, as a contributor, I have certain expectations of document >> authors here, but these are *not* actionable in any sense.) As an author, I >> sometimes have forgotten to include people who made contributions worth a >> mention, and I would have been spared the shame if the contributor would >> have alerted me to that at the right occasion. As a contributor, I have >> never felt the need to pressure an author to include me, though. >> >> It does make sense to relay some common sense of what is expected in an >> Acknowledgements section to new authors. >> I don't know we do this at the moment. >> >>> If you feel like you should be listed in the Acknowledgements section of a >>> WG document due to your contribution, and you're not listed in WG Last >>> Call, ask the WG to be included. 'Nuff said. >> >> I'd modify this to "ask the authors". >> Ask, as in "shouldn't the Acknowledgement section be updated", not demand as >> in "I have an **g right to be in there". >> >> The contents of the Acknowledgment section is about as much subject to WG >> consensus as the authors' street addresses. >> >> Grüße, Carsten >> >>
Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)
Hi Lloyd, On 03/25/2013 10:03 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: > (i'm just commenting on this thread so that when it results in an I-D > recommending how to write acks, I get acked...) Thanks! Yours is the first useful thing anyone's said in this thread that I recall. (Most previous mails made me groan with embarrassment that we wrap ourselves around axles like this so easily, but yours gave me a chuckle, and is hence far more useful:-) S.
Re: [IETF] Re: It's a personal statement (Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections)
On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:50 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hi Lloyd, > > On 03/25/2013 10:03 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: >> (i'm just commenting on this thread so that when it results in an I-D >> recommending how to write acks, I get acked…) +1 W P.S: :-P > > Thanks! Yours is the first useful thing anyone's said in this > thread that I recall. (Most previous mails made me groan with > embarrassment that we wrap ourselves around axles like this so > easily, but yours gave me a chuckle, and is hence far more > useful:-) > > S. > -- For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
