Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts

then there is the problem of folk who insist on being listed as co-authors even 
when they have contributed nothing to
the text or the idea.

if co-authors are “confirmed” automatically, the problems will not go away or 
be fixed..

/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102

On 21April2015Tuesday, at 4:26, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

> 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.