Re: "Stuckees?"

["James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

I think this is an excellent idea. I'm not sure if it would help with the
management issue, but it is worth a try. We have the same management issue here.
People are expected to author drafts, and they don't get credit for reviewing or
otherwise contributing.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>
To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri@acm.org>; "'wgchairs'" <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:09 AM
Subject: RE: "Stuckees?"


> If we don't have any other way to recognize key contributors, some will
> insist on draft authorship, and some will stop participating.  Since we
> now seem to have a policy limiting authorship on IETF documents, this is
> an actual problem for me.  I have been asked by a valued contributor to
> add his name to a draft because otherwise his manager might reduce the
> hours he gets to work on this (unfortunately, the draft now has more
> than the allowed limit of authors).  So for some people, it really is
> about getting a permission slip. Do we lose these people because we
> aren't willing to write permission slips?
>
> So what if chairs put a "Key Contributors" on a working group home page
> or in drafts or something? The benefit of this is that it helps people
> show their managers they are recognized as contributers and thus they're
> meeting their review goals. It may help them get travel budgets - the
> WebDAV WG has many key contributors who rarely get to travel to
> meetings.  The recognition alone may motivate people (even independent
> contributors) to act responsibly and think of themselves in this way.
> It might keep somebody contributing long after their initial job-related
> impetus is over (I know draft authorship does the same thing for many
> people). It's a pragmatic commitment consistency tool.
>
> A "Key Contributors" list could be started by just one WG, but it
> wouldn't have the same force of recognition. Some IETF-wide guidelines
> as to what makes a key contributor (technical/process participation in
> the past year, for example) would help give it the force of recognition
> to make it a powerful tool for chairs.
>
> Lisa
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-wgchairs@ietf.org
> > [mailto:owner-wgchairs@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:07 PM
> > To: wgchairs
> > Subject: Re: "Stuckees?"
> >
> >
> >
> > I have 2 issues:
> >
> > - I don't really think there is a need for a special
> > name for strong contributors.  It is a state that
> > some people reach defacto when they become members
> > of special teams (e.g. design or editing).  Perhaps
> > some extra effort in recruiting people onto these
> > teams is warranted
> >
> > - I think that people should be responsible for their
> > own time commitments. The idea of asking someone if
> > they specifically have their boss's permission is akin
> > to getting a parent's permission slip for a school
> > trip.  In addition it doesn't make sense to me.  Some
> > participants are independent contractors and some are
> > willing to put in time outside their jobs to meet IETF
> > commitments.
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>