I've filed a number of drafts where I didn't know at filing time what addresses my co-authors wanted to have on the draft (deadlines again). That said, it seems that a button called "BLANK THIS DRAFT" which was available to co-authors and filed a -01 with "THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK" as its only content (after approval) might adequately solve the problem without the need to modify our main workflows... Den 21. april 2015 15:05, skrev Stewart Bryant: > On 21/04/2015 10:46, Fred Baker (fred) 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. > > Having all authors authorize would be a good idea not only for the reason > you state but to stop some form of IPR ambush where you acquire liabilities > because you were once an author. > > However getting drafts out before IETF is hard enough so pre-authorization > would need to be supported. > > - Stewart > >