[rfc-i] On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and overload.
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.
> 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
> 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.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest