On 4/22/15, 11:49 AM, "Warren Kumari" <warren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> >wrote: >> On 4/21/15 7:51 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >>> 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. >> >> That's probably the case but it still seems to be a problem (I've >> had it happen, as well). I think part of this is cultural and a >> failure to understand IETF process (i.e. creating bogus, orchestrated >> support for moving a document along), but it may be worthwhile, at >> some point, to create a mechanism for a "coauthor" to either take a >> draft down or expire it early. Not a high priority. > >Seeing as the motivation for doing this (and similar things) is to try >ride the coattails of well known participants I think we can solve >this "issue" by having people who this happens to publicly (in the WG >or on discuss@) call out the fact that this happened. >Removing the benefit of doing this (and turning it into a detriment >instead) seems like an easy, no new process, etc solution. Being called out by a well known participant might prejudice discussion of an otherwise useful draft. I might not even know what I think about the idea yet, so I may not want to shoot it down for reasons outside of its worthiness. Heck, I might love the idea so much I want to be a co-author. I've been thinking about the point that requiring confirmation from all authors would slow down the process when against a deadline, and it could be easily gamed if the submitter lists herself as the only author on the -00, then immediately submits a -01 listing all of the other authors. Then the WG gets timely access to the content of the draft, and the authors bring -01 (fully attributed and attested) as the version for discussion. Lee > >W > > >> Melinda >> > > > >-- >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 > >