RE: Re: Authors on draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-01

Indeed - the "one editor" method has been used elsewhere. There are
several people that would be hostile to this including myself - ego food
is necessary in the contributor-driven RMT work, especially with the
long term commitments. Based on individual commitments to the work, the
name in bright lights seems like a minimal reward.

Cheers, Rod.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Mark Watson [mailto:[email protected]] 
>Sent: 01 March, 2006 11:48
>To: Walsh Rod (Nokia-NRC/Tampere); [email protected]
>Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [Rmt] Re: Authors on draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-01 
>
>Rod,
>
>Another solution - which I have seen done before - is that the 
>official author list contains only one name explicitly flagged 
>as 'editor' and then the contributors list contains the full 
>list and explains that the people listed there are more than 
>just 'contributors'.
>
>I notice that the deadline for revised drafts is this week, so 
>we need to conclude soon so that I can submit revised drafts on Friday.
>
>...Mark
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:33 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 
>Mark Watson
>Subject: RE: [Rmt] Re: Authors on draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-01 
>
>Thanks for the info Allison
>
>I guess this makes it easier for LCT as the existing RFC has 6 
>authors so there must already be a break down of 
>contributions. Likewise Mark is the only new author and since 
>he's taken on the editorial job for ALC-revised it's easy to 
>both identify his contribution and justify him as an author.
>
>ALC may be more of a problem as it had 5 (so no prior audit) 
>and now it has 6 - and since Mark is the newbie and his 
>editorial work is easy to justify his contribution this makes 
>for the problem of analysing earlier authors. However some of 
>the RMT team, including me, were not active in the early days 
>of LCT and ALC so it would be impossible for us to identify 
>existing contributions.
>
>The rigid 5 author limit in this case is proving to be bad 
>politics - both getting justification/audit for contributions 
>made very many moons ago and removing authors could be 
>painful. Is there another option?
>
>In our FLUTE edits (which has 5 authors named), it is 
>absolutely clear that the contributions of Sami and Jani 
>Peltotalo go beyond only contributions - they've done the 
>hardest and most of the work on the schema (which may be both 
>broken and without 3GPP alignment without them), and their 
>early implementations and interoperability tests with Nokia 
>and INRIA improved a great deal of other aspects (e.g. now the 
>blocking algorithm is in integer arithmetic) as well as the 
>most editorial review of any RMT contributor which resulted in 
>the kind of numerous and almost continuous contributions that 
>become completely integrated to the document. Yet with a 5 
>author limit it's not possible to introduce them to the 
>authors' list without bad politics, which is a terrible shame. 
>In this sense, I greatly sympathise with Mark who's doing the 
>good (and almost thankless) work of editing several x-revised 
>documents, but could be lumbered with the horrible job of 
>author pruning.
>
>For completeness I did a quick check on other "author 
>anomalies" so hopefully we can minimise pain by doing this in 
>one clean sweep:
>- "draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised" has 3 (1 new) whereas "RFC 
>3452" has 6
>- "draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised" has 1 (1 new) 
>whereas "RFC 3695" has 2
>- "draft-ietf-rmt-bb-tfmcc-05" has 2 (1 new) whereas "RFC 3448" has 4
>
>(Getting the "Contributors" sections right is a subject for 
>another thread another day :)
>
>Cheers, Rod.
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ext Allison Mankin [mailto:[email protected]]
>>Sent: 20 February, 2006 18:29
>>To: Walsh Rod (Nokia-NRC/Tampere)
>>Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>>Subject: [Rmt] Re: Authors on draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-01
>>
>>Rod,
>>
>>The only way we succeed with more than 5 authors is if we 
>explain in a 
>>section exactly what each person wrote in the document.  
>Usually we try 
>>to have the extra people step down from the top author list if at all 
>>possible, though they stay in the list at the end of the document.
>>
>>Can you send me a draft of the section that would say who 
>wrote what in 
>>LCT?  I can look and see if it would fly :) I'm sympathetic, 
>but there 
>>are reasons on the other side too.
>>
>>Allison
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Rmt mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
>>
>