[rfc-i] last call "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and overload."
spencer at wonderhamster.org
Tue Jan 10 11:28:34 PST 2012
On 1/10/2012 1:09 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> 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.
FWIW, in my experience as WG chair and as editor for a few RFCs, we
seemed to hit the 5-author (soft) limit with about 7 authors, not more
than 10, in most cases, so Bob's observation would have improved things
in the cases I've had to deal with.
I note that 7 authors on draft RFC managed to get me and Aaron Falk (as
co-chairs) about 160 e-mails and something like 12-15 text resets during
AUTH48 (which could have been retitled AUTH48WEEKS), so I would support
10, with guidance to be careful what you wish for, if you wish for 10
authors on the front page :-)
More information about the rfc-interest