On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:46 AM, 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. > I agree with the problem above. What is the percentage of drafts with such "co-authors"? > 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? > I think this would be overkill. Of course it depends on the frequency of the times this happens. My guess is a very small 0.001 or something like that percentage. Otherwise we end up slowing down the submission process and make it almost impossible to meet the deadline due to irresponsive co-authors. One positive result could be that we get drafts with less number of authors :-) Behcet > 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.