Re: What's an author? [was: Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of

Brian,



On 2015-04-24 02:58, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi Loa,
>
> On 23/04/2015 20:34, Loa Andersson wrote:
> > Brian,
> >
> > On 2015-04-23 06:08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > To some extent this thread has been ducking the question that lies behind it.
> > > What is an author, in the IETF context? There's no short answer, so here's
> > > a draft of a long answer. If people think it's useful, I can author an
> > > I-D about it...
> > >
> > > Scope
> > >
> > > These guidelines are aimed at Internet-Drafts in the IETF publication stream.
> > > They are intended to be compatible with the RFC Editor's style guide (RFC7322)
> > > as well.
> > >
> > > Authors
> > >
> > > Authors are people who have made a substantial creative contribution to the 
> > > document.
> > > Normally this means writing text or drawing diagrams. Occasionally, with the 
> > > consent
> > > of the other authors, it means making some other substantial creative 
> > > contribution to
> > > the document, for example by writing a software implementation as part of the 
> > > design
> > > process.
> > If we have A, B, C, D, E and F that all claim that they have equal
> > contributions to a particular document, according to your definitions
> > it would be wrong to move any of them to the contributors section,
> > right?
> >
> > If we have A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H, the same applies?
> You are trying to murder me with 1000 recursive cuts :-).
>
> Yes, of course there is that problem. When you get to the RFC Editor,
> you can have that discussion, and I won it for RFC 7421 for example.
>
> As my message said, it's a judgement call.
I'm actually quite supportive of coming up with guidelines, as long as
they are written in a way that it not appear that they are rules written
in stone (I have not yet read your draft).

I think you'll have the same problem as we had with the "secretary"
draft. Definitions and understanding of the concept (secretary or
author) are very different in different places.

- the folks that write a draft, has one understanding of who the
  authors are
- working groups seem to have as many understandings as there are
  working groups
- ADs have their own understanding
- the RFC Editor yet another
- I have one and you have possibly another.

Of all these above I would actually favor that we ask the people
listed on the draft who are the author(s).

I'm opposed to have a fixed number. And yes - I understand that there
is such a thing as "too many"! An such cases we should agree on one or
two editors and move the rest to an "Authors" section. Different from
what you define as "Contributors", i.e. we could have editors on page 1,
one authors section and one contributors section, as well as
acknowledgments.

A second reason I'm opposed to a fixed number is what happens quite
frequently - we have 4 names on the front page, two of those are the
actual authors (your definition), the other two are at best contributors
(still your definition), but in that case moving them to the 
contributors section never happens.
/Loa
>     Brian
> > /Loa
> > > People who did not make any such substantial contribution must not be listed
> > > as authors. People must not be listed as authors without their explicit 
> > > permission.
> > >
> > > The practical impact is that the authors will be listed as such on the front 
> > > page if
> > > the document becomes an RFC.
> > >
> > > Contributors
> > >
> > > Contributors are people who made smaller creative contributions to the document
> > > than the authors.
> > >
> > > People who did not make any such contribution must not be listed as 
> > > contributors.
> > > People must not be listed as contributors without their explicit permission.
> > >
> > > The dividing line between contributors and authors is matter of judgement. 
> > > However,
> > > the RFC Editor's policy is to query any document that has more than five listed 
> > > authors.
> > >
> > > Editors
> > >
> > > When a document has a large number of contributors and potential authors, it may
> > > be appropriate to designate one or two people as "Editors" and list all the 
> > > others
> > > as contributors. The practical impact of this is that the editors will be listed
> > > as such on the front page if the document becomes an RFC.
> > >
> > > Acknowledgements
> > >
> > > Acknowledgements should be given to people who have made significant creative
> > > contributions smaller than those from the authors and contributors, or to people
> > > who have made useful comments, provided critical reviews, or otherwise 
> > > contributed
> > > significantly to the development of the document. Acknowledgements may also be 
> > > given
> > > to people or organizations that have given material support and assistance, but
> > > this should not include the authors' regular employers.
> > >
> > > An acknowledgement does not signify that the person acknowledged agrees with the
> > > document. In general, people who do not wish to be listed as an author or a
> > > contributor, but have in fact made a significant contribution, should be given
> > > an acknowledgement.
> > >
> > > Copyright
> > >
> > > None of the above affects copyright. Copyright in IETF documents is governed
> > > by BCP 78, the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions, and applicable national and
> > > international law.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >     Brian
> > >
> > > On 23/04/2015 14:55, John Levine wrote:
> > > > In article <20150423021027(_dot_)GL16567(_at_)mx2(_dot_)yitter(_dot_)info> you 
> > > > write:
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:58:27AM -0000, John Levine wrote:
> > > > > > Someone pointed out that the authors all get notices when a new draft
> > > > > > is posted.  That seems good enough for the rare cases of false
> > > > > > attribution, so "never mind".
> > > > > Except that the people included are thereby on the record as somehow
> > > > > being an author of these things, and maybe they don't want to be.  I
> > > > > think that's a little worrisome.
> > > > I was assuming that aggrieved non-authors could then use out of band
> > > > means to ask that their unauthored drafts be unpublished.  At least
> > > > this lets them know about funny business.
> > > >
> > > > Sure, a sufficiently devious author could use fake addresses that he
> > > > controlled, but that seems a higher degree of evil than we need to
> > > > plan for.  Should it happen, I'm sure we'll have the tools to swat the
> > > > violators.
> > > >
> > > > R's,
> > > > John
--


Loa Andersson                        email: 
loa(_at_)mail01(_dot_)huawei(_dot_)com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64