[rfc-i] On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and overload.

Spencer Dawkins spencer at wonderhamster.org
Wed Sep 21 09:10:20 PDT 2011


I'm pretty much full ACK with Joe's list here.

While it might be more appropriate for the RSE, I do think that a cleaned-up 
version of his AFAICT list would be useful - especially the distinction 
between Acks and Contributors is helpful.

Spencer

> I think this evolved out of a few different paths:
>
> - a perceived need to strictly adhere to the 5-author rule
> - authorship issues that arise when documents are merged or
> the result of large design teams
>
> AFAICT:
>
> Acks are to provide credit to those who gave feedback, or for specific 
> ideas - for those who did not contribute extended text.
>
> Contributors are to provide credit for those who contribute extended text, 
> as is often the case with large FAQs or BCPs.
>
> Contributing Authors is a cookie to those who were left off the Author 
> list due to a process issue.
>
> For those of us who can go to IETFs regardless of how many drafts we do or 
> don't write, this may seem unimportant. However, others sometimes need to 
> point to something more than "contributor" to justify travel to their 
> organizations. Including contact info there is more than a matter of POC; 
> it may be what the supporting organizations expects as a 'nod' to their 
> authorizing travel.
>
> It seems a useful distinction where documents decide it's necessary, but 
> otherwise harmless to the overall process AFAICT.
>
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest 



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list