Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Acknowledge former employers
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
@MikeBishop
MikeBishop committed May 23, 2018
1 parent e852fec commit 15142b8
Showing 1 changed file with 4 additions and 0 deletions.
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions draft-ietf-quic-qpack.md
View file
Expand Up @@ -785,6 +785,10 @@ those authors is gratefully acknowledged, as well as ideas from:

* Dmitri Tikhonov

A substantial portion of Mike's contribution was supported by Microsoft during
his employment there.

Buck's contribution was supported by Google during his employment there.

# Change Log

Expand Down

6 comments on commit 15142b8

@janaiyengar
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've not seen this in the past. I don't have any issue with this, since employer names are present up at the top anyways, but is this practice becoming common now?

@ekr
Copy link
Collaborator

@ekr ekr commented on 15142b8 May 25, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't recall seeing this before. Generally, the IETF theory is that we participate as individuals.

@MikeBishop
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's in 7540, where @martinthomson changed jobs mid-spec, and I've been using the same text for the drafts that started before I changed. It's certainly not obligatory, but I thought it was courteous since that employer no longer gets the headline spot.

@martinthomson
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That was my call then. It's not a requirement, nor expected. (I spent a significant amount of time on the spec while at Microsoft, most of the time if I remember rightly, and I thought it appropriate). In this case, this would be Buck's choice, but I would default to not including the extra text.

@MikeBishop
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fine by me. @afrind, should I revert the commit, or would you like to?

@krasic
Copy link

@krasic krasic commented on 15142b8 May 29, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would lean toward acknowledging Google's support.

Please sign in to comment.