Fred, I'm replying at the top of a nice long e-mail thread, but I've read
to the bottom as of the moment I typed this note ...
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:46 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.
Speaking only for myself (as one of 15 ADs), I'd like to agree.
I'm not amused by this practice.
I've added your note to the topic list for the IESG retreat (first week of
May), to discuss your note and the thread of followups with the rest of the
IESG.
Thanks for raising my awareness.
Spencer
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.