--On Friday, May 10, 2019 08:27 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09-May-19 18:03, Martin Thomson wrote: > ....> Final point, and it's a new one (sorry): Authorship. > This is likely to be a sensitive topic. But it is probably > not appropriate to replace the entire author list for a small > change. Some guidance on that would be welcome. My > suggestion would be to recognize new authors either as an > additional author or editor, or even to list them in the > contributors. Like a lot of this, judgment will need to be > exercised, but that should take into account the size of the > change and the amount of work that was done. > > I think this is probably a general point for many RFCs in all > streams, not just the ones targetted by the draft, so I think > it would be better to leave it to RFC Editor policy. Agreed... and I was about to say that this interacts in significant ways with issues we have traditionally left to the RFC Editor. In particular, listing the new authors as Contributors generally doesn't work because the listed authors are (unless the RFC Editor significantly changes policy) the people responsible as contact points, involved in AUTH48, etc. In addition, the RFC Editor has traditionally pushed back on documents with a long list of authors (in the early days, Jon took the position that more than one or two authors violated good sense and the ideas of "contact point" and "final responsible party. The limit was later expanded to no more than five unless exceptional circumstances applied. One can imagine a document with four or five authors expanding, on revision, to a very long list that was quite meaningful except, perhaps, for academic credit or points from employers. I hope we don't need to go there, if only because it would bring discredit on the series. Much better to let the RFC Editor set policy and decide on whatever exceptions are needed. > It is discussed briefly in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-whats-an-author-02 > #section-7 but that draft has no status except "Expired". Indeed, but, AFAICT, that section just further describes the problem rather than suggesting any solutions. best, john
