John Levine wrote:
So there is an opportunity for a surprise author to alert the IESG &
RFC editor.
Yes, there is a chance to publicly humiliate the submitter. I would not want
to do that, so your proposed solution doesn't address my need.
Considering that most of these situations appear to be mistakes, why
should correcting this mistake be more humiliating than correcting the
zillions of other mistakes fixed from one version of an I-D to the next?
R's,
John
PS: If it's not clear, this is a real question.
The other real question is why this has to be public at all? So you name
appears on -0n and not on -0n+1, the only people that need to know why are the
"surprised" and the submitter. If the submitter refuses to take it off,
alerting the IESG and RFC-editor (still not a public humiliation) should be
enough. The only case where one might consider "going public" is if an I-D is
in last call and you still can't get the acknowledgment removed. If the IESG
has decided against you already though, it is likely there is a reason you
should not be dropped from the contributors list, so public complaining is
likely to be more humiliating for the complainer.
Tony