Re: LDAPbis Acknowledgement Policy

[mcs@netscape.com (Mark C Smith)]

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> 
> At 09:56 AM 1/11/01 -0500, Mark C Smith wrote:
> >
> >I assume it is up to the document editor to determine what constitutes a
> >"major contribution."
> 
> Yes.  It is the document editor who executes the policy
> and should apply reasonable discretion.

Okay by me.


> >For example, technical review of changes by an
> >expert could be viewed as a major contribution.
> 
> I guess it could be.  I'm more of the school that the
> act of reviewing is different than the act of authoring.
> However, reviewers do originate work which is included in
> the document.  As an editor, I would try to judge whether
> this work was 'major' or 'significant' and acknowledge
> based upon this judgement. This, of course, is just my view.
> There are other valid approaches to applying reasonable
> discretion which an editor may take.

Right.  In most cases, I wouldn't consider technical review to produce a
major contribution -- but it might (that is, if a great idea is
contributed during such a review I might consider that a major
contribution, even though no document text was written by the
contributor, etc.).



> >>   The document editor and author(s) of prior work(s)
> >>   shall be credited in an Acknowledgement section.
> >
> >Unless they are already listed in the new document in the header, etc.
> 
> I would like to see the first paragraph of the acknowledgement
> section of each I-D to state:
> 
>         This document is an update of RFC XXXX by John Doe
>         and Mark Jones.  RFC XXXX was a product of the IETF
>         XXXX Working Group.
> 
> The statement should name all the listed editors/authors of
> the RFC(s) which is being updated.

That sounds good to me.  I suggest you spell that out in the
Acknowledgement Policy / Guidelines so we are consistent.

-Mark