Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 30/05/2015 02:02, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> I believe John is correct. Whether or not they are surprises,
> involuntary acknowledgements may be highly desirable in some
> circumstances.
>
> But wait... there's a draft about this since three minutes ago:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-whats-an-author-01

This reads good.

It should also tell the main author how to decide whether or not someone 
is an author, by answering a few questions:

- a person who provides corrective text is a co-author or not.

- a person who provides new text is a co-author or not.  What
   percentage of lines should qualify.

- a person who introduces a valuable idea that the main author
   reformulates into draft text is a co-author or not.

- a person who receives an invitation to contribute text and
   affiliation and provides only one is a co-author or not.

- a person who is reputed by other means to be an authority in this
   draft's field is an author or not.

- a person who was the first to write this idea in a draft X years ago
   is an author or not.

And, non-authors should have a means to identify themselves as such.

Alex

>
> Regards
>     Brian
>
> On 30/05/2015 11:25, joel jaeggli wrote:
>> Afaik from our discussion that led to this statement, and the recent
>> appeal on the subject, The contents of the acknowledges section is
>> largely at the discretion of the editors/authors.
>>
>> I liked our words on the subject at the time.
>>
>> Writing acknowledgments sections is largely a matter of editorial
>> discretion, where good sense and general attribution practices are the
>> primary guidelines, although RFC 2026 Section 10.3.1 has some specific
>> rules regarding acknowledgment of major contributors, copyright, and IPR.
>>
>>
>> On 5/29/15 4:03 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>> John,
>>>
>>>> I hope this does not turn into a long discussion, but I believe
>>>> the parenthetical note about "surprised acknowledgment" either
>>>> needs to be removed
>>>
>>> FWIW, after seeing your note I do agree that it could be misinterpreted.
>>> I’m fine with removing it. But I make no claims about the preferences
>>> of my fellow IESG members regarding such removal :-)
>>>
>>> Jari
>>>
>>
>>
>
>