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

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Thu Sep 29 21:16:51 PDT 2011

I hope that I am misunderstanding you Joe.
Otherwise, I would have to say that your description is missing an 
important fact reflected both in our rules and our history.

Once a document is adopted by a working group as a working group 
document, it does not belong to the author.  If the chairs (with the 
consent of the WG) deem that the WG is best served by a change in 
authorship, then a different person is given the pen.

The earlier author must be properly credited.  But they no longer own 
the text.

In extreme cases, when an AD judges that the pen holder of a WG document 
is not making the changes the WG requires, the AD is expected to work 
with the chairs to cause a change of pen holder.  This has happened in 
the past with working group documents.

So, yes, the IETF does appoint the person doing the writing for WG 

For non-WG documents, the IETF has no say.


On 9/28/2011 8:30 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> On 9/28/2011 4:46 PM, SM wrote:
>> Hi Joe,
>> At 16:17 28-09-2011, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> For IETF stream:
>>> add author/editor is made by the individuals with the approval
>>> of the WG
>> Isn't that a WG Chair decision?
>> I am fine with it being done with the approval of the WG. There can be
>> situations when it is better not to have a WG discussion about
>> authorship.
> I doubt a WG chair would make a decision that the WG didn't like, but I
> wasn't focusing on who "approves".
> My main point was that the IETF (Wg chair, WG - whatever) doesn't
> appoint (that is unilateral, and authors/editors can always decline);
> they "invite" or "approve", however you prefer to view it.
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list