[rfc-i] Five-author maximum?

Paul Hoffman / VPNC paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Thu Jun 10 09:47:23 PDT 2004

At 12:32 PM -0400 6/10/04, Mark Allman wrote:
>i.e., it wasn't an oversight, it was an explicit
>decision.  That's the story.

Sounds good to me. It's hard to know that from looking at the 
document, of course.

>We might reasonably disagree whether it should be Phil or Phil+everyone
>else, or about the general policy, or whatever.  **However**, I
>completely **reject** the notion that this document is "padded" with
>authors.  If one were to look at the record from the PILC WG, I think
>one would see that all these folks made a substanative contribution.
>Further, this was an explicit decision not an oversight.  Sorry for
>being a bit sensative here, but simply counting authors and suggesting
>author padding without attempting to understand the context and the
>process that was used to arrive at the author list slights these folk's
>work, IMO.

My point about padding was in the Phil or Phil+everyone debate, not 
whether those people did much work. In many IETF documents, more than 
5 people contribute a great deal of thought and text.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list