Re: [OAUTH-WG] New draft process / editor role

[William Mills <[e-mail]>]

+1




>________________________________
> From: Anthony Nadalin <[e-mail]>
>To: Eran Hammer <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail] WG ([e-mail])" <[e-mail]> 
>Sent: Friday, June 8, 2012 7:18 PM
>Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] New draft process / editor role
> 
>
> 
>Why rant here, talk to the chairs or AD
>
>Sent from my Windows Phone
>
>________________________________
> From: Eran Hammer
>Sent: 6/8/2012 6:58 PM
>To: [e-mail] WG ([e-mail])
>Subject: [OAUTH-WG] New draft process / editor role
>
>
>Today, a new draft of the OAuth 2.0 specification was published.
> 
>* I had nothing to do with this draft. I did not edit or authored it. I didn't know it was being published.
>* The draft was authored by Mike Jones and published by Dick Hardt.
>* Neither one is an editor or an active author of the document.
> 
>Here are the facts:
> 
>* On 5/31 Hannes asked me to publish a new draft with the proposed changes posted by Mike by Sunday 6/3 (within 3 days). The chairs did not offer any reason for requesting such a quick turnaround. It took the chairs weeks to respond to me about the request for ABNF or error text. There wasn't any urgency when it was their task.
>* I promptly replied that I plan to wait until the ABNF is completed before publishing a new draft. The ABNF, which is the only pending DISCUSS for the core specification, is still being actively debated on the list and was clearly presented as work in progress.
>* Hannes did not reply back with any other instructions.
>* Mike replied back trying to speak on behalf of the chairs, suggesting that 'version numbers are cheap'. I replied that my time isn't.
>* At no point did any of the chairs indicated any issue with my publication schedule. The full thread is here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg09111.html.
>* Today, using Dick Hardt author credit on the document, Mike published his draft. There is no indication that changes were made by someone other than the editor or that the added sections are still a work in progress and pending consensus as is WG practice (e.g. [[ Pending Consensus ]] or [[ Proposed Text]]).
>* No one has offered any explanation as to why the editor was pushed aside and blindsided with a new draft. There was no communication or any attempt to from the chairs, Mike, Dick, or anyone else.
>* After posting the new draft, Mike emailed the IESG to resolve a pending DISCUSS item on the core specification, something that is clearly my role and handled by me so far. I was not included in the email list but received a copy through the tracker system as author.
> 
>Publishing a new draft must be done by a listed author. The only reason Dick and David are listed is historical in regognition of their initial contribution. Both David and Dick offered to remove their name from the top credits in the past (the reason Dick gave at the time was that the document was clearly my work). Using the author credit as a way to sidestep the editor is within the chairs right but that doesn't make it right.
> 
>I have done absolutely nothing to justify taking the document editorial work from me, even temporarily. I have tirelessly published 26 drafts of this documenty. I have been working on this specification for almost 5 years. While the chairs can certainly decide who gets to edit and publish new drafts, there was no reason to do this here, and typically this is done when an editor is unresponsive and has to be removed. In this case, it was the chairs who were unresponsive  and uncommunicative. They didn't think to even give me the courtesy of a head up.
> 
>It is not clear to me what my standing is at this point with regard to this document. I will wait for further information from the AD to decide how to proceed.
> 
>EH
> 
>_______________________________________________
>OAuth mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>