W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > March 2008

RE: ISSUE-188 (props): xit needs an acknowlegements section [wsc-xit]

From: Serge Egelman <egelman@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:46:00 -0700
To: "'Johnathan Nightingale'" <johnath@mozilla.com>, "'Stephen Farrell'" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: "'Anil Saldhana'" <Anil.Saldhana@redhat.com>, "'Web Security Context Working Group WG'" <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <021e01c88de7$d59431c0$80bc9540$@cmu.edu>

I would suggest at the bare minimum, the metric should be whether a person
has raised and ISSUE or been assigned an ACTION.


-----Original Message-----
From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Johnathan Nightingale
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 7:20 AM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: Anil Saldhana; Web Security Context Working Group WG
Subject: Re: ISSUE-188 (props): xit needs an acknowlegements section

On 21-Mar-08, at 9:00 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> I wrote all the bits with apostrophes in the wrong place ;-)
> Odd way to do the acks. I'd have thought that contributing didn't
> require writing a paragraph and that writing a paragraph isn't a
> good metric for contribution.

Yeah, I dunno if the w3c has clear rules about this kind of thing, but  
I consider it sort of an over-limiting process too.  I don't know, for  
instance, if Ian F. has literal text in the draft or not, but I'd say  
he's been an active contributor, worthy of acknowledgement regardless.



> My suggestion: go back through the list and minutes and decide
> between editor/chair/team who to list & deal with it if problems
> arise.
> But whatever,
> S.
> Anil Saldhana wrote:
>> I am adding the acknowledgement section today with the answers on  
>> this thread. So please reply to this thread if you want your name  
>> in the acknowledgment section (along with the name of the sections  
>> that you contributed). I will regularly update the ack section, as  
>> and when you claim your rights in the ack section.
>> Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:
>>> Yes, Page Info lives; thanks.
>>> From:
>>> Johnathan Nightingale <johnath@mozilla.com>
>>> To:
>>> Web Security Context Working Group WG <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
>>> Date:
>>> 03/14/2008 12:03 PM
>>> Subject:
>>> Re: ISSUE-188 (props): xit needs an acknowlegements section [wsc- 
>>> xit]
>>> Assuming that either Page Info or Identity Signal goes in, I think I
>>> can lay claim to having specific text in the LC-June document.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Johnathan
>>> On 14-Mar-08, at 11:33 AM, Web Security Context Working Group Issue
>>> Tracker wrote:
>>>> ISSUE-188 (props): xit needs an acknowlegements section [wsc-xit]
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/issues/
>>>> Raised by: Mary Ellen Zurko
>>>> On product: wsc-xit
>>>> I suggestion something of this form:
>>>> This note is created from specific text from x, y, and z, as well  
>>>> as
>>>> input and discussions among the active participants of the Web
>>>> Security Context Working Group. It has also benefitted from general
>>>> public and working group commentary on earlier drafts.
>>>> We should start tracking x, y, and z in this issue. Off the top of
>>>> my head, I know that Thomas Roessler, Stephen Farrell, Serge
>>>> Egelman, and Mary Ellen Zurko have proposed specific text that is
>>>> currently in the LC-June version. At some point I'll troll through
>>>> and try to figure out what the full set is, but if you're one, you
>>>> can save me work by replying to this issue, specifying the text (or
>>>> section, or issue that had the text).

Johnathan Nightingale
Human Shield
Received on Monday, 24 March 2008 19:48:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:21 UTC