I think this can be resolved because a contributor shouldn’t be added without their agreement (similar as authors); maybe something to check by the shepherd as well.
However, I think even if someone is listed in ack section it would be useful to clarify why someone is listed; I’ve seen people listed that provided feedback but in a negative way. I think those are the cases that are problematic for the person listed. Mirja > On 26. May 2026, at 08:46, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 26, 2026, at 08:30, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Inclusion as a contributor is a strictly factual statement. > > Exactly. > >> On that last point, it's probably worth a note saying that a document should >> acknowledge when a contributor strongly disagrees with something in a >> document. > > In the best case, that would be snapshot of the thinking of the contributor > at the time of publication. > >> In retrospect, > > (QED.) > >> I really wish that I could disendorse much of RFC 6772, despite thinking >> that the small parts I wrote still hold up well. > > I don’t think a document should make any statement of endorsement/disavowal > trying to speak for a contributor. > (Oh, you say that as an author of RFC 6772, which amplifies my point of these > positions being somewhat ephemeral.) > > Grüße, Carsten > > -- > rswg mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
