Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:57 PM, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> So  there is an opportunity for a surprise author to alert the IESG & RFC
>>> editor.
>>Yes, there is a chance to publicly humiliate the submitter. I would not want to do that, so your proposed solution doesn't address my need.

Why not?
There are many things that we do where we self police and train people
into more appropriate behavior by pointing out where they are being
anti-social. We try and do this privately, but if that doesn't work,
we often do it in a more public venue.
For example, I remember an instance where I was having a side
conversation in the middle of a working group meeting and you
(rightly) poked me and asked me to shut up or take it outside. If I
had continued to do this, I would have expected you to ask more loudly
and / or ask the chairs to request that I shut up.
There are many places where we act the way that we do simply because
of social convention, which is arrived at by communicating what is
appropriate and what isn't - for example, I walk the extra few steps
to throw away my chewing gum in the trash receptacle  instead of
simply sticking it on your laptop. If I were to smear it all over your
keyboard, I'd expect you to object -- and if I did it repeatedly I'd
expect you to object in a more and more public manner, until I learnt
what is, and what isn't appropriate.

If you are walking down the road an a pickpocket grabs your wallet and
runs off, would you feel uncomfortable shouting "Stop! Thief!!!"
because it may humiliate him?

>
> Considering that most of these situations appear to be mistakes, why
> should correcting this mistake be more humiliating than correcting the
> zillions of other mistakes fixed from one version of an I-D to the
> next?

Yup - if this is an accident / mistake then mentioning it publicly it
need not humiliate anyone[0] - and if it done maliciously then I think
it is perfectly appropriate to call it out publicly to get the
behavior changed. You could always email the authors privately first
and expect them to do the right thing - if I'd (mistakenly) added you
as an author to a draft I'm writing, I'd immediately release a new
version without you listed, and post a note to the list (and probably
put an editor's note at the top of the document) saying something like
"Sorry all. I'd mistakenly listed Ted as an author on version -xx of
this document. I'd thought he'd agreed to be an author and contribute
text, but it seems I misunderstood". If this was an honest mistake I
wouldn't be humiliated -- and if this sort of thing *did* make me feel
shame, I'd simply make very sure that everyone who I listed as an
author had agreed to be one.

When used maliciously this tactic only has any value because it
creates the perception of support - by removing this incentive the
tactic becomes valueless.

W
[0]: Especially if done with tact - coming out and saying "Bob is a
big doo-doo head. He added me to this without my permission and so is
scum" isn't. Mentioning that you don't remember having contributed to
this document or having agreed to author, and asking Bob to release a
new version without you listed should be fine. I've been on both sides
of this - I've added people who I thought had agreed to contribute
(and then discovered that they hadn't meant to give that impression),
and also been surprised to be added. In at least one case I've stood
at the mic and said "I think that's a great idea...", only to discover
that I was an author :-)[1]. In all cases it was settled peaceably,
and without drama - but if it had been done maliciously I would feel
no guilt calling people out on it.

[1]: Actually, in this particular case I had contributed significantly
to the document, it was just being discussed in a manner where I
didn't recognize which document it was...

> R's,
> John
>
> PS: If it's not clear, this is a real question.
>
>
>



-- 
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