IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Support (as co-author)

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Tue, 26 November 2019 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 627E1120AC8 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 12:01:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.404
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.404 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.244, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IML6JRrRQBVH for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 12:01:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-f50.google.com (mail-ot1-f50.google.com [209.85.210.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 860041208E5 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 12:01:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-f50.google.com with SMTP id m15so17036096otq.7 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 12:01:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nqWJFJ58Cz7pnZREGZyL+r0gNX5HEhu19bcNK/f6k9w=; b=mibCoIwQbHnEsSTKBmIRVB7r389hcOxuZEUoCmYYATwc6z2QaRYqPDrLY1mSO2ogNK IAf/mGZfGqX19I6U3zA8FvMK3JR1cYY9dWA1hvrY7L9e07YO2MCu4sRBy1kkGWiijYY0 fN2z2lLmadEtG2bDRip/VF0vEuIulqSEn94uywgKXW/jHIrObNbpJiUEYfHJit+DJ7mj q98LtLlIkLPc9i3mO8GZz0ybPI1h0FzaOTw9Mj0VbWhsI1jZg3dsh3eIA9V2Zk2lmu1K 5kIdqpETuDYjG3Tdgc5BJxn19mp4FetVek5erWbhxG9ibE66YhikjspE0rRm6vYtFkWt NGuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUKlu8q9GEon6AdXie6wbdnNuGViBvqdPFvN+M2ZlcgzFuOHrS1 sRuJuXOM0gfahrWLIN9PPmOHc3pdDzEJj0f0H80=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzFem/LRWbf2RZShB/2DzrSggeiGVLHqkW0kI2vlenJEKF4elJwdPbzmrtDLlQz9i5v3Ry9Rhwdv4UUQZQUbpw=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6f15:: with SMTP id n21mr625444otq.231.1574798492756; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 12:01:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5871efb6-9fa7-a06a-e201-fb9fba04935e@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5871efb6-9fa7-a06a-e201-fb9fba04935e@cisco.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:01:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwiE4SoYYNNwYkpvmjXbYN+a+z_zgQMTqT_ES-sM=a+P_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Support (as co-author)
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Cc: WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c0f41805984558ba"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/pEsYNglCwyERp-s8tGDsjEsMyVY>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 21:39:32 -0800
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 20:01:56 -0000

I think it is an important question to ask.

Quite a few of my drafts have taken a long time to reach RFC. If I have
written 100% of the original draft and had the original idea, then I expect
my name to be there as a co-author even after I hand it off to other
people. But that isn't a commitment to read every new incremental revision.
That is not how I work.

It is more than fair to ask me if I still support the work as an ongoing
project after a WG has rewritten it.

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:10 AM Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Along the years, I witnessed a trend, which intensifies with time: "I
> support the adoption of this draft (as a co-author)."
> Well, if someone is a co-author, implicitly this person wants the draft
> to progress. Therefore, such as message carries no weight IMO.
> Is it time for the WG chairs to start correcting this behaviour, or at
> least setting the right expectations?
>
> ex:
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/?q=Adoption%20Call%20for%20draft-ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email