A related issue is "fake acknowledgments". This is where a draft author sends a note about the draft to some set of folk, and then thanks them for their review and support, regardless of if they actually, you know, reviewed or expressed support. An example: "The authors would like to thank all those people who directly helped in improving this draft and all supporters of this draft, especially <inset well known IETF names here>" this makes it look like the people listed actually support the document, which may be used to claim legitimacy. I don't think there is anything the IETF can or should do about it, but individuals who get fake thanked might want to speak out and mention that they are not actually expressing support... W On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Scott Kitterman <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On April 21, 2015 5:46:14 AM EDT, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>I’m not sure what list this question belongs on, so I’m bringing it >>here. Happy to be redirected. >> >>I have had a problem on a number of occasions with my name being listed >>as an author on a draft that I had not agreed to co-author, and in some >>cases, that I hadn’t even seen. In most cases, I have been able to get >>the putative co-author to remove my name in a -01 version. I can point >>to at least one draft that I didn’t initially agree to co-author, was >>unsuccessful in getting my "co-authors" to remove it, and wound up >>largely re-writing, which involved a lot of work. I’m not alone in >>this; various people have complained of third parties listing them as >>co-authors on drafts without their consent. >> >>I’m bringing it up this time on the behalf of some Cisco colleagues, >>who found themselves "co-authoring" a draft that they didn’t know >>anything about in one working group, got their names off the draft, and >>then discovered their names on a related draft in another working >>group. It seems to me that an ethical line was crossed in the interest >>of showing support for a concept. >> >>First, I’d like to believe that this isn’t an acceptable practice. I’d >>like to believe, shock of shocks, that a co-author is first someone >>that has agreed to co-author, and is someone that has text or at least >>concepts that are included in the draft. >> >>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? >> >>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. > > One approach might be to make it so that draft updates are automatically accepted if the uploader is in either the new or previous version. That way when this happens, the person that's incorrectly included can upload a -01 removing themselves. > > I think it would also make sense to limit auto-accept of drafts from people with a history of doing this. > > Scott K > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf