Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors

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

>> 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 think it's as much of a solution as we can afford.  For all the heat 
this topic has provoked, the large majority of drafts with multiple 
authors are sent in with the consent of all the authors.  Anything that 
makes it harder to surprise an author also makes it harder to be a 
legitimate co-author.  Given the amount of work already required to move 
an idea from -00 draft to RFC it seems to me inadvisable to add another 
hoop to jump through.

>From the discussion so far, it appears that most surprised authors are due 
to misunderstandings, not malice.  So in the rare event that someone 
disclaims authorship, the usual response would be oh, sorry, I'll resubmit 
without you and that should be that.  If it becomes a pattern or otherwise 
shows malice, that would be a problem but it doesn't seem like one we have 
to solve now, if ever.

Also, for better or worse the IETF has never tried to identify people 
online beyond their e-mail addresses.  I'm reasonably sure I know who you 
are because I've talked to you at meetings, but there are plenty of people 
who've don't come to meetings and contribute anyway, so all we have to go 
on is the address.  Since any e-mail verification can be trivially 
circumvented with a fake address, it doesn't seem wise to build yet 
another steel door on a cardboard box.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.