ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors

2015-05-31 18:43:06
Le 30/05/2015 02:02, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
I believe John is correct. Whether or not they are surprises,
involuntary acknowledgements may be highly desirable in some
circumstances.

But wait... there's a draft about this since three minutes ago:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-whats-an-author-01

This reads good.

It should also tell the main author how to decide whether or not someone is an author, by answering a few questions:

- a person who provides corrective text is a co-author or not.

- a person who provides new text is a co-author or not.  What
  percentage of lines should qualify.

- a person who introduces a valuable idea that the main author
  reformulates into draft text is a co-author or not.

- a person who receives an invitation to contribute text and
  affiliation and provides only one is a co-author or not.

- a person who is reputed by other means to be an authority in this
  draft's field is an author or not.

- a person who was the first to write this idea in a draft X years ago
  is an author or not.

And, non-authors should have a means to identify themselves as such.

Alex


Regards
    Brian

On 30/05/2015 11:25, joel jaeggli wrote:
Afaik from our discussion that led to this statement, and the recent
appeal on the subject, The contents of the acknowledges section is
largely at the discretion of the editors/authors.

I liked our words on the subject at the time.

Writing acknowledgments sections is largely a matter of editorial
discretion, where good sense and general attribution practices are the
primary guidelines, although RFC 2026 Section 10.3.1 has some specific
rules regarding acknowledgment of major contributors, copyright, and IPR.


On 5/29/15 4:03 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
John,

I hope this does not turn into a long discussion, but I believe
the parenthetical note about "surprised acknowledgment" either
needs to be removed

FWIW, after seeing your note I do agree that it could be misinterpreted.
I’m fine with removing it. But I make no claims about the preferences
of my fellow IESG members regarding such removal :-)

Jari