Hi Fred,
Yes, I witnessed that behavior a few times in the past.
I also witnessed the fake acknowledgment (mentioned by Warren).
Adding authors or names in the acknowledgment to promote drafts is the
wrong way to go and really plays against the persons playing this trick,
once this is known.
We could spend our time trying to engineer an extra process, or "flame"
those persons in public. My heart is torn between the two.
Regards, Benoit
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.