> On Apr 21, 2015, at 4:32 AM, Hosnieh Rafiee <hosnieh.rafiee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Fred, > > >> 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? > > About your second option, I would say this might make problem. I give my case as an example. It happened to me several times that I needed to upload a draft in 90 minute of cutting date and my co-authors already did his/her contribution on a system we used to share information and this person is no longer available. Then I can no longer reach him. In your suggestion, I can no longer upload a draft when my co-author is asleep or no longer reachable. The verification period isn’t instant; the tool sends the email, and considers it to have failed if a couple of days elapse (or something like that). > I think the one who used your name or someone else's name in his/her draft without previous discussion, might use different email address of himself/herself too to authorized its sending. So I suggest to use other approach... Do you have another suggestion? >> This would also clear out people whose addresses change; I understand >> an address changing in a later version of a draft (someone@xxxxxxxxxxxx >> becomes someone+else@xxxxxxxxxxxx) and being missed in a draft update, >> but I don’t understand an incorrect address on the -00 version. > > Thanks, > Best, > Hosnieh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail