[rfc-i] Five-author maximum?
Paul Hoffman / VPNC
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Thu Jun 10 09:47:23 PDT 2004
At 12:32 PM -0400 6/10/04, Mark Allman wrote:
>i.e., it wasn't an oversight, it was an explicit
>decision. That's the story.
Sounds good to me. It's hard to know that from looking at the
document, of course.
>We might reasonably disagree whether it should be Phil or Phil+everyone
>else, or about the general policy, or whatever. **However**, I
>completely **reject** the notion that this document is "padded" with
>authors. If one were to look at the record from the PILC WG, I think
>one would see that all these folks made a substanative contribution.
>Further, this was an explicit decision not an oversight. Sorry for
>being a bit sensative here, but simply counting authors and suggesting
>author padding without attempting to understand the context and the
>process that was used to arrive at the author list slights these folk's
My point about padding was in the Phil or Phil+everyone debate, not
whether those people did much work. In many IETF documents, more than
5 people contribute a great deal of thought and text.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
More information about the rfc-interest