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

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Tue Jan 10 10:09:01 PST 2012


I think that actually we should treat this as a real limitation, not 
just a process problem.  (If it were just a process problem, then fixing 
the process would indeed be correct.
We concluded many years ago that having long author lists on the front 
page produced a serious problem in getting the necessary information 
onto the front page.
Therefore, the length was to be limited, and the default limit was set 
to 5.
No, this was nor formalized, nor set in stone.
Making it clearer that there is a real limit, and it is there for 
presentation reasons, is a good thing.
being clear that when, and how far, we can bend that rule is also useful.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/10/2012 12:49 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> * 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.
>
> We should fix the process issue rather than add a hack.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list