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

SM sm at resistor.net
Tue Jan 10 09:52:39 PST 2012


Hi Heather,
At 04:50 10-01-2012, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>This past autumn, a discussion started regarding the need to clarify
>terms and responsibilities for Authors, Contributing Authors, Editors,
>and Contributors (see
>http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.rfc.interest/2395 for the original
>discussion).  Olaf drafted a policy statement, collected feedback, and

There is also a mailing list archive at 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest

>Final substantive comments are welcome through 17-Jan-2012.

[snip]

>  * AUTHORS or EDITORS
>
>   The designation AUTHOR or EDITOR is one that is made by the
>   individuals themselves.

This is stream dependent.  For a WG draft, it would be up to the WG 
chair.  As the AD and IESG also have their say, I would use the 
wording provided by Paul Hoffman.

>   If an EDITOR is also a contributing author, her name may appear in
>   the Contributing Authors section as well, without the 'editor'
>   designation.

Isn't that a bit too much?  I suggest removing this to keep matters simple.

>During the discussion of this policy Joe Touch provided
>
>* Acknowledgments 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.

Fred Baker provided good advice ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71104.html ).

Regards,
-sm 



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list