Be nice if the posting tool confirmed co-author(s) whenever a co-author(s) is
"new" (all would be new for -00). This would require keeping a database of the
drafts and co-authors.
- Bernie (from iPad)
On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:46 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I’m not sure what list this question belongs on, so I’m bringing it here.
Happy to be redirected.
I have had a problem on a number of occasions with my name being listed as an
author on a draft that I had not agreed to co-author, and in some cases, that
I hadn’t even seen. In most cases, I have been able to get the putative
co-author to remove my name in a -01 version. I can point to at least one
draft that I didn’t initially agree to co-author, was unsuccessful in getting
my "co-authors" to remove it, and wound up largely re-writing, which involved
a lot of work. I’m not alone in this; various people have complained of third
parties listing them as co-authors on drafts without their consent.
I’m bringing it up this time on the behalf of some Cisco colleagues, who
found themselves "co-authoring" a draft that they didn’t know anything about
in one working group, got their names off the draft, and then discovered
their names on a related draft in another working group. It seems to me that
an ethical line was crossed in the interest of showing support for a concept.
First, I’d like to believe that this isn’t an acceptable practice. I’d like
to believe, shock of shocks, that a co-author is first someone that has
agreed to co-author, and is someone that has text or at least concepts that
are included in the draft.
Second, I wonder if there is a way we can manage this. A simple approach
would involve the posting tool. When we ask to post something, the authors
are polled in email to ensure that the email address in the draft actually
gets to them, and they have to reply either in email or on the web. What
would it take to, when posting a -00 draft, require all of the co-authors to
positively respond, and have the posting fail if they don’t, or if any
responds negatively?
This would also clear out people whose addresses change; I understand an
address changing in a later version of a draft
(someone(_at_)example1(_dot_)com becomes
someone+else(_at_)example2(_dot_)com) and being missed in a draft update, but
I don’t understand an incorrect address on the -00 version.