Hi Loa, On 23/04/2015 20:34, Loa Andersson wrote: > Brian, > > On 2015-04-23 06:08, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> To some extent this thread has been ducking the question that lies behind it. >> What is an author, in the IETF context? There's no short answer, so here's >> a draft of a long answer. If people think it's useful, I can author an >> I-D about it... >> >> Scope >> >> These guidelines are aimed at Internet-Drafts in the IETF publication stream. >> They are intended to be compatible with the RFC Editor's style guide (RFC7322) >> as well. >> >> Authors >> >> Authors are people who have made a substantial creative contribution to the document. >> Normally this means writing text or drawing diagrams. Occasionally, with the consent >> of the other authors, it means making some other substantial creative contribution to >> the document, for example by writing a software implementation as part of the design >> process. > > If we have A, B, C, D, E and F that all claim that they have equal > contributions to a particular document, according to your definitions > it would be wrong to move any of them to the contributors section, > right? > > If we have A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H, the same applies? You are trying to murder me with 1000 recursive cuts :-). Yes, of course there is that problem. When you get to the RFC Editor, you can have that discussion, and I won it for RFC 7421 for example. As my message said, it's a judgement call. Brian > > /Loa >> >> People who did not make any such substantial contribution must not be listed >> as authors. People must not be listed as authors without their explicit permission. >> >> The practical impact is that the authors will be listed as such on the front page if >> the document becomes an RFC. >> >> Contributors >> >> Contributors are people who made smaller creative contributions to the document >> than the authors. >> >> People who did not make any such contribution must not be listed as contributors. >> People must not be listed as contributors without their explicit permission. >> >> The dividing line between contributors and authors is matter of judgement. However, >> the RFC Editor's policy is to query any document that has more than five listed authors. >> >> Editors >> >> When a document has a large number of contributors and potential authors, it may >> be appropriate to designate one or two people as "Editors" and list all the others >> as contributors. The practical impact of this is that the editors will be listed >> as such on the front page if the document becomes an RFC. >> >> Acknowledgements >> >> Acknowledgements should be given to people who have made significant creative >> contributions smaller than those from the authors and contributors, or to people >> who have made useful comments, provided critical reviews, or otherwise contributed >> significantly to the development of the document. Acknowledgements may also be given >> to people or organizations that have given material support and assistance, but >> this should not include the authors' regular employers. >> >> An acknowledgement does not signify that the person acknowledged agrees with the >> document. In general, people who do not wish to be listed as an author or a >> contributor, but have in fact made a significant contribution, should be given >> an acknowledgement. >> >> Copyright >> >> None of the above affects copyright. Copyright in IETF documents is governed >> by BCP 78, the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions, and applicable national and >> international law. >> >> Regards >> Brian >> >> On 23/04/2015 14:55, John Levine wrote: >>> In article <20150423021027.GL16567@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write: >>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:58:27AM -0000, John Levine wrote: >>>>> Someone pointed out that the authors all get notices when a new draft >>>>> is posted. That seems good enough for the rare cases of false >>>>> attribution, so "never mind". >>>> >>>> Except that the people included are thereby on the record as somehow >>>> being an author of these things, and maybe they don't want to be. I >>>> think that's a little worrisome. >>> >>> I was assuming that aggrieved non-authors could then use out of band >>> means to ask that their unauthored drafts be unpublished. At least >>> this lets them know about funny business. >>> >>> Sure, a sufficiently devious author could use fake addresses that he >>> controlled, but that seems a higher degree of evil than we need to >>> plan for. Should it happen, I'm sure we'll have the tools to swat the >>> violators. >>> >>> R's, >>> John >>> >>> >> >