Subject: RE: [Rmt] Re: Authors on draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-01

From: "Mark Watson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 07:08:38 -0500

Well, I don't have any particular opinion or personal need for 'ego
food' - I just want to know what will get the documents approved with
least difficulty.

In the case of ALC and LCT, I have asked all the previous authors for
comments on the new drafts. Mayby we should just remove those who have
not responded or participated in any way in the update to Standards
Track (noting in the contributors section that they were authors on the
original RFC) ? This might get us below the magic 5 number.

...Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 12:15 PM
To: Mark Watson; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Rmt] 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-masked]] 
>Sent: 01 March, 2006 11:48
>To: Walsh Rod (Nokia-NRC/Tampere); [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>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-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:33 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
>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-masked]]
>>Sent: 20 February, 2006 18:29
>>To: Walsh Rod (Nokia-NRC/Tampere)
>>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>>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-masked]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
>>
>

_______________________________________________
Rmt mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt