Subject: downgrading authors to contributors?

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 05:07:55 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

Just wanted to get a quick feel whether you think this would be
appropriate or not.  The situation is half-hypothetical :).

An informational WG document had been sitting around for a long time,
with no changes.  A new editor picked it up and basically rewrote and
extended it; he added himself as a co-author.  The old authors have no
longer in any way contributed to the work.

Would you feel it'd be inappropriate to remove the old authors from
the authors list and "just" describe them as in the Contributors
section?

(My basis here is that as the doc was basically rewritten, there seems
to be very little original "authorship" left, and not contributing
seems like a sufficient reason.  This would seem to better give the
credit where the credit is really due.)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: "The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 21:11:55 -0600

You say that a new editor "rewrote and extended it", but "The old
authors have no longer in any way contributed to the work."  The
statements seem contradictory.  There would have been nothing to "rewrite"
from had the original authors not made their contributions.
The original authors should stand (unless there were five).
QED

Hilarie Orman

---

From: Matthew J Zekauskas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 02:45:58 -0400

> the authors list and "just" describe them as in the Contributors

[snip]

Are the original authors available to OK the document when it
gets to Authors 48 hrs?  If they've truly left the group,
I'd make them contributors, with the new person as editor.
If they're still interested, but just haven't been working on
the document, I'd leave 'em as co-authors (at least as long as
there are not too many total now).

However, it is a working group document, not theirs, so I feel
moving old authors to contributors and just having the editor
named is an appropriate action.

--Matt, has not had to face this particular issue.

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 00:04:00 -0700

We had that issue in our WG. I asked the old authors who had pretty much 
disappeared
for most of the writing, whether they wanted to still be involved, in 
which case they
could give a careful review of the pretty much completed document, or 
wanted to
be moved to the acknowledgement section. They volunteered to be moved to
the acknowledgement section.

If they objected to not being named
coauthors, and as long as the real author didn't mind leaving them
there, I'd have left them on.

If the real author was indignant about leaving them on, AND they wanted 
to remain
on, then it would have been difficult.

Radia

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 11:17:51 +0300 (EEST)

On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman wrote:
> statements seem contradictory.  

Possibly a little bit :)

> There would have been nothing to "rewrite"

True enough, though the main contribution that remained was the
(obvious) title and (parts of) the ToC :).

I guess the issue is whether one (honestly) call that authorship or
just an (initial) contribution.

As an aside...

This could actually come up now and then.  Let's assume a design team
of 3-4 people starts working on something, and after a while you
realize that it's not going anywhere.  You recruit someone(s) to take
over the project.  The simplest approach would probably be just create
a completely new draft, and not update the existing one. But if you
update the existing one in any case, you have to figure out how to
properly acknowledge the earlier attempts on the project, while giving
due credit to those who took the pains to get it back on track and
finished.

FWIW, some seem to think that once they're listed as an author, they
don't need to do anything (and if one actually wants to finish these
projects, leading them to the conclusion seems to be pretty
important).  This is why I'm looking for methods to give better credit
to the people who actually do the work, while properly acknowledging
less active contributions.

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 06:51:37 -0700

For WG documents, I prefer to have one and only one person
listed in the header and that person listed as 'Editor'.
Everyone else (including active authors) in contributors
or acknowledgements.  This reduces headaches such as you
are facing... as well as makes things simpler at AUTH48.

Kurt

---

From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 17:21:40 +0200 (CEST)

> longer in any way contributed to the work.

What happened to the new ideas in the orginal draft?  If the original
ideas are still in the document, I'd list the as authors, even though the
write-up has been redone.  (For example, one would mention Albert Einstein
as the author of a draft that derives E=mc^2, even if he had just
contributed the formula and somebody else wrote the text).

Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit
and wisdom to do their job properly.                          (David Brent).

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 14:00:26 -0700

I agree with Henk...if the ideas are really new, the people who came up
with the ideas should be listed as coauthors even if they don't write 
the words.

Radia

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 15:05:34 +0100

I think we need to be careful in selecting the correct people to name 
when a document is first adopted as the WG draft (hindsight?)

- having selected authors I suggest we should be careful about removing 
names of people who seem to go silent at some point through the 
evolution for the document - I like the test case of explicitly asking 
them to review all the changes in the new document (if they commit to do 
that, anbd actually do it, they could be in a most useful position to 
improve the document or raise debate on it; if they prefer not to (or 
don't) they should have their original document acknowledged, - that is 
also a suitable, justifyable, outcome).

I strongly dislike the idea of mandating a single author/editor on WG 
documents - IMHO, people who make substantial contributions should be 
encouraged to commit to help to refine the text and ideas until they 
finally become a RFC!

Gorry

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 10:59:06 -0700

Pekka,

>the authors list and "just" describe them as in the Contributors

I think the best thing to do is to ask the original authors if they still 
want to be listed as an author.  It makes me uncomfortable to remove people 
as authors without their agreement.  I can think of one instance of this 
happening in the past that resulted in an appeal and some nasty accusations.

Bob

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 14:35:01 -0400

> contributed the formula and somebody else wrote the text).

I-D and RFC editors are also special in (at least) two other ways: 

1) Documents with unreachable authors are doomed to never emerge from
the RFC publication process -- presence on the author list means that
the RFC editors need a positive ack from all listed authors prior to
publication and Einstein is a bit hard to reach at present.

2) With the new 3667/3668 boilerplate, by submitting the draft with
Einstein's name attached, you're also representing that Albert has or
will disclosed all relevant IPR.

							- Bill

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:02:13 -0700

On Aug 8, 2004, at 12:04 AM, Radia Perlman wrote:

> I asked the old authors who had pretty much disappeared

I like what Radia has written as a good rule of thumb:

1) explicit expression of continued interest
2) willingness to conduct careful reviews, say, at wglc and auth48

As Pekka points out, the document belongs to the working group.  So 
long as contributors are explicitly recognized, we should reward folks 
who are willing to make the commitment to take the document to 
completion.  Followthrough is hard.  And important.

--aaron

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 12:56:03 -0700

At 10:02 AM 8/9/2004, Aaron Falk wrote:

>>for most of the writing, whether they wanted to still be involved, in which case they
>>could give a careful review of the pretty much completed document, or wanted to

I strongly object to the notion of removing existing authors
when a specification is updated.  Let's say the original
author wrote 99 of 100 pages for an RFC.  That person is
no longer available to work on the new update.  Somebody
else updates the document (adds 1 page, e.g., updates
some detail to include IPv6 address support).

It is inappropriate to delete the original author who
wrote most of the RFC.  It's fine to add the new author(s)
to the list -- even though it will appear the new people
worked on all of the ideas in the RFC, but they just made
minor updates instead.

Andy

>As Pekka points out, the document belongs to the working group.  So long as contributors are explicitly recognized, we should reward folks who are willing to make the commitment to take the document to completion.  Followthrough is hard.  And important.
>
>--aaron
>
>

---

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:57:02 -0400

>publication and Einstein is a bit hard to reach at present.

You as the WG chair can beg the RFC editor to close the loop after
some reasonable time has elapsed and there have been multiple
attempts to reach the editor during the Auth48.

There have been number of cases where this has been used to
successfully publish the RFC's
         - Editor in my WG stopped communicating with anyone associated
           with the IETF. After consulting with AD and co-editors
          RFC editor published with name on document.
         - One of two editors did not respond, the other editor after
           conferring with RFC editor removed the non responsive editor
          from list
           and moved to contributor
         - Editor died before document was published.

In short, work with your AD to find best path forward,
         - only list editor(s) of last version.
         - publish with unchanged list due to significance of contribution,
           but with out answer.
         - keep waiting.

I think the 48 hour process must be modified to have a documented
timer that prevents this (almost) common problem. Right now
disgruntled editors can hold the process hostage.

         Olafur

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:15:40 +0300 (EEST)

> disgruntled editors can hold the process hostage.

I disagree with this assessment.  WG chairs and ADs are Cc:'ed on all
correspondence with the RFC-editor.  It is the responsibility of
chairs/ADs to act if it looks like the editors/authors are not
responsive or want to delay for one reason or another.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:07:41 +0100

Agree,

Further, if the draft is a WG draft and the current editors are not doing their job,
remove them.

Adrian