Re: [Json] Authorship

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

As responsible AD for this WG:

On 9/27/13 1:18 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> <no hats>
>
> On 9/27/13 5:17 AM, John Cowan wrote:
>    
>> I think section 14 satisfies all authorship concerns.
>>      
> I don't agree.  Although he should not be editing now, Mr. Crockford
> wrote the bulk of the text and it would be wrong to remove him from the
> front.  Section 14 already indicates that only a small number of
> revisions have occurred.  Our practice is to leave him in the author
> field.  We have mechanisms to deal with getting documents out the door.
> It is important to indicate that he has not actively contributed to this
> draft, and thus may not agree with the revision.
>    

The chairs and I talked about this prior to the change. Yes, we do have 
ways to override the procedural aspects if Douglas is unresponsive, but 
that involves me as AD intervening and saying, "Yes, let's publish 
anyway." When we currently have no indication on the list that Douglas 
is participating, and he is not responding to repeated attempts by the 
chairs to contact him, I think it is unreasonable to *plan* to make an 
exception. If he returns to working on this, that would be great and I 
think he should be put back on the front page. But until then, it is 
clear that he can not fulfill the responsibilities of an author as 
described in http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html and that he is a 
contributor and not an author. We have made exceptions to this in 
special circumstances (an author having passed away and we wanted to 
give him credit posthumously), but I do not think this is one of those 
special circumstances.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]