On Apr 24, 2015, at 9:12 PM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca> wrote:
John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
Things have obviously changed. We have gotten the name or names on the
first page tied up with questions of attribution, IPR issues, the
entirely different conventions of more academic/scholarly and formal
publications and carryover of assumptions from other communities more
broadly, and with compensation and performance review polices in a
number of companies. I'd like to go back; I don't see how.
If we can come up with a way of providing attribution in a way that Tenure
Committees understand, then I don't care what goes on page 1.
(And if Tenure Committees understand, then I think that will likely solve
the problems of other communities.)
Getting too many names on the author list of a paper is an issue in the
Academic world where these tenure committees work:
http://berkeleysciencereview.com/too-many-authors/
Granted, it’s usually not this bad in computer science. The acknowledgement
section sometimes contains the names of people whose contribution is correcting
a spelling mistake, or trying to implement the spec and sending a message to
the list that it looks like it works. I don’t think tenure committees can make
decisions based on that.
If we wanted something they could work with, we’d need to differentiate
substantial from non-substantial contributions, and that makes the work harder.
Both editors and chairs like to be "hearty in your approbation and lavish in
your praise.” Adding someone’s name to the acknowledgement section is cheap and
helps with getting consensus. Having to score people on the weight of their
contribution will subvert the IETF process for the benefit of tenure committees
and corporate performance reviews.
Yoav