[rfc-i] Five-author maximum?
dmm at 1-4-5.net
Thu Jun 10 09:53:42 PDT 2004
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:47:23AM -0700, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
>> 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
>> >work, IMO.
>> 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.
Definitely true. One thing we should likely keep in mind
here is that the point of this rule (AFAIK) is to help
out the RFC Editor (and hence streamline our
process). There are many ways to give credit in those
cases where there is an editor (like a Contributors
section, distinct from the Acknowledgments section). In
any event, that is what I have done on several occasions,
and it seems to work pretty well.
More information about the rfc-interest