Re: proposed surprise hack, was IESG Statement on surprised authors

["John Levine" <[e-mail]>]

>I can understand about the cut-n-past, but I don't understand why this
>is not captured very early in the process, e.g. when first posting the
>draft. At least some steps, e.g. posting the first version of the wg
>draft sends mail to all authors, also changing state in the data
>tracker do that.

As far as I know, it is.

It is evident from the discussion to date that while some of us find
it a problem to ask to be taken off a draft, others don't.  So here's
a proposed code sprint hack.

Add a new database table of surprise-averse authors.  Allow people to
register their addresses, with the usual confirmation click through
mail.  Now when an I-D is posted, if it has a surprise-averse author
listed and that author isn't on an earlier version of the same I-D,
that author has to confirm the draft before it's posted.  (If there
are also non-averse authors, they can confirm it too but there's no
point since it doesn't move forward until the averse authors do.)

This doesn't seem terribly hard, it doesn't require that anyone change
the way they work if they don't want to.  It doesn't solve the
possible problem of drafts with fake addresses, but nothing's going to
prevent that without totally changing our processes.

R's,
John

PS: I have about four addresses I use in IETF correspondence, only one
of which I use in I-D's, so I might list the other ones.