[rfc-i] last call "On Authors, Contributors, Editors, and overload."
touch at isi.edu
Tue Jan 10 11:53:39 PST 2012
On 1/10/2012 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.
> 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.
PS - I don't see how an organization can assert how many authors a body
of work has. That's for the authors to determine.
Merely claiming that there's a limit doesn't change how many authors a
More information about the rfc-interest