[rfc-i] last call "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and overload."
bob.hinden at gmail.com
Tue Jan 10 11:09:41 PST 2012
On Jan 10, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for bringing this back to the underlying problem.
I will observe that part of the cause of the problem that results in the limitation to 5 authors, is that we currently include the authors affiliation on the line after the authors name. So in the worst case we need 10 lines for 5 authors. If we were to drop the affiliation from the first page, this would allow for 10 authors. The affiliations would continue to be listed in the author's address section.
Personally, I think it's better to drop the affiliations from the first page, than to limit the number of authors to five (when there really are more than 5 authors). This could at a minimum be a solution to the cases where there are more than 5 legitimate authors, or even better remove the affiliation from all future RFCs.
> 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.
> On 1/10/2012 12:49 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>> * Acknowledgments are to provide credit to those who gave feedback, or
>>> specific ideas - for those who did not contribute extended text.
>>> * Contributors are to provide credit for those who contribute extended
>>> 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.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest