Um, wouldn't these thoughts be better addressed, um, to someone potentially in a position to do something about it?
Besides, this was discussed almost two years ago. (I originally provided a link to the thread but have since unlinked it. After all, what's done is done.) Please don't get me wrong. Merlyn (and any other person involved in the process) should receive fair credit and/or compensation. The thread I didn't link to showed a number of things, including the discomfort several felt about discussing the particulars in such a public forum. While I realize you're not addressing precisely the same issue as that other discussion, I personally wonder if the two aren't more than a little related.
In any event, Camel3 has been put to bed. While changes in attribution might be made in a later edition, that seems highly unlikely. Indeed, a far wiser course of action might be to first find out if the monk in question still has issues with that and, if so, then see what (if anything) he thinks would be an appropriate response at this point in time. (Hint: there is a new version of Perl coming out RSN.)
Would it not be better to focus on trying to affect the future instead of rehashing the mistakes of the past--especially when there may be more to the story than what's been discussed publically?