[E-impact] Re: Moving draft-various-eimpact-arch-considerations along

[Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>]

Hello, Mark,

By the way, another datapoint, it looks like your email was also the very first mention of "draft-various-eimpact-arch-considerations” in the [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> mailing list:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/e-impact/?q=draft-various-eimpact-arch-considerations 

Unless I missed something. That can happen when chairs are editors since they do not self-check-and-balance.

Thanks,

Carlos.

> On Sep 4, 2025, at 8:36 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I've joined the program as an IAB member, with the purpose of getting the program output published:
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-various-eimpact-arch-considerations/
> 
> One thing that needs to be settled before publication in the author list on the draft; RFC Editor policy is to have a maximum of five authors on a draft, and this far exceeds that.
> 
> I'd like to propose a way to determine who should be authors on the draft, as someone who hasn't been involved to date. I haven't looked at the history yet, but thought I'd highlight how I would approach that decision.
> 
> In general, I think that the authors list should reflect the people who are actively 'holding the pen' on the draft. If their role is primarily editorial, their name should have the 'ed.' qualifier to indicate that they're an editor. Then, people who have contributed to the content of the draft can be acknowledged in a 'contributors' section near the end.
> 
> Please take a moment to consider this and indicate whether this approach is workable in this case; if there's some context that I'm missing that would be good to know.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> -- 
> E-impact mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]