RE: IESG Statement on surprised authors

["Tony Hain" <[e-mail]>]

Larry Kreeger wrote:

> On 5/31/15 3:11 PM, "Ted Lemon" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >On May 31, 2015, at 1:04 PM, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> We do automatically notify authors when new drafts are posted, which
> >> should usually alert surprised authors to the problem.
> >
> >At this point the damage is already done: the surprised author now has
> >to publicly accuse the other author(s) of surprising them, which is
> >really burdensome and which said surprise author kit find completely
> >unpalatable for any number of reasons. This is not a solution.
> 
> I agree with Ted on this. - Larry
> >

So to balance this, I will disagree, and point out that this exposes the
flaw in this entire thread. 
"Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months ..."
So  there is an opportunity for a surprise author to alert the IESG & RFC
editor. There is no reason to burden the I-D submission process with
verification. People have been added and removed from various I-D sets for
all kinds of reasons, and years later nobody is even aware it happened
unless they search an archive. 

While I agree with Brian's draft, the statement 
"It goes without saying that normally nobody should be listed as author,
contributor or editor against their will."
is clearly misworded since this entire thread and that document are about
SAYING exactly that. 

Tony