IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Support (as co-author)

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 29 November 2019 06:53 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 F021D120013 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 22:53:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 MzsOg8MF5oy0 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 22:53:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.20.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDA8512000F for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 22:53:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw10.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.10]) by gproxy9.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3610F1E0870 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 23:53:13 -0700 (MST)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id aa9QiNv1gawnoaa9RiOt6V; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 23:53:13 -0700
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=F/N5iJpN c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=jpOVt7BSZ2e4Z31A5e1TngXxSK0=:19 a=dLZJa+xiwSxG16/P+YVxDGlgEgI=:19 a=MeAgGD-zjQ4A:10:nop_rcvd_month_year a=Vy_oeq2dmq0A:10:endurance_base64_authed_username_1 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=WOIJDy4HAAAA:8 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=AZWxgnkXrk1WBTLiybQA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10:nop_charset_2 a=vZeeOPnm6wCDdeIhPRcA:9 a=eUWsmhbQ35bXuZqn:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10:nop_html a=RH9Et_pqK2yyrEzRTb3T:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Subject:References:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:Date:CC:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=C876wohlCSdABM57j3E0ICC5erKmnfJOJ4soQx6P9Qk=; b=bvxe7JdC9JVwT6Hpn5N80eH9Bt kGkj2DWUUrdHNWTzZnywIlZ6aRXPxNNNym8rKAGhYFwQWGe1F/eM0BEzXESjtEQ5g121JODW2EENN UB2mEGXuhyaIqb6Zbi4UOPH1C;
Received: from [172.58.139.125] (port=44880 helo=[100.91.11.158]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1iaa9Q-0002lJ-B6; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 23:53:12 -0700
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
CC: WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:53:07 +0900
Message-ID: <16eb5ef4438.277b.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwiE4SoYYNNwYkpvmjXbYN+a+z_zgQMTqT_ES-sM=a+P_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5871efb6-9fa7-a06a-e201-fb9fba04935e@cisco.com> <CAMm+LwiE4SoYYNNwYkpvmjXbYN+a+z_zgQMTqT_ES-sM=a+P_Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: AquaMail/1.20.0-1469 (build: 102100004)
Subject: Re: Support (as co-author)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------16eb5ef45cc33a5277bff1de7"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 172.58.139.125
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1iaa9Q-0002lJ-B6
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: ([100.91.11.158]) [172.58.139.125]:44880
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 1
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/qXqQ6fRbIEgrNTtMUUb8LGUCm7g>
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: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 06:53:21 -0000

There's a big difference between adoption and last call.  The point of the 
original mail was on the former, on which I'm totaly ambivalent.  On the 
other hand, I agree that authors should be included in wg last calls.

Lou


----------
On November 29, 2019 2:40:17 PM Phillip Hallam-Baker 
<phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:

> 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