Re: [security-services] counter proposal on contributor/acknowledgementlists...

[John Kemp <john.kemp@nokia.com>]

Although I agree that we are building a community around a standard, and 
we should absolutely acknowledge all members of the TC in doing so 
(which we will do in the 'acknowledgements' section), I believe also 
that each of the editors would wish to acknowledge those who especially 
contributed text and ideas to the documents. People who did not directly 
edit the documents, but contributed significant pieces of text and/or 
comments on the text, and I think Rob's proposal nicely credits those 
people, whilst not diminishing the efforts of TC members.

Cheers,

- JohnK

ext Maryann Hondo wrote:

>I'd like to make a counter proposal.
>While I agree that the editors should be recognized for their 
>contributions,
>isn't the goal here to build a community around a standard?
>why not just simplify and follow what wss did, which was to include all 
>the others as "contributors".
>the ietf generally had hundreds of participants where this group is not so 
>large that it would be prohibitive to include everyone.
>
>Maryann
>
>
>
>
>"Philpott, Robert" <rphilpott@rsasecurity.com>
>08/17/2004 09:35 AM
> 
>        To:     <security-services@lists.oasis-open.org>
>        cc: 
>        Subject:        [security-services] proposal on 
>contributor/acknowledgement lists...
>
>
>I have a proposal on what to do with the contributor/acknowledgement 
>lists? it borrows a bit from the guidelines for IETF RFC?s (see 
>ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt).
> 
>The ?Editors? list should list those people (and their affiliation) that 
>authored MOST of the current document text and physically edited the 
>document drafts.  Roughly analogous to a combining of the RFC ?authors? 
>list and the RFC editor, the list should be quite short (e.g. 5 or fewer).
> 
>The ?Contributors? list should list those ?who deserve significant credit 
>for the [current] document contents?.  I further propose that ?significant 
>credit? be roughly defined as those that made material contribution to the 
>spec; that is, they provided some actual or proposed text (but not to the 
>level of an editor), provided significant editorial review comments, etc. 
>Note that the contribution wouldn?t necessarily have to be written 
>contribution (e.g. they may have proposed some important changes during an 
>official con-call meeting). 
> 
>In general, I think that anyone that personally believes they fall in this 
>contributors? category should probably be listed in this section.  But 
>since I don?t think that someone should be listed if they never really 
>contributed to the list or in meetings, I recommend that the co-chairs and 
>spec editors should make the final call on these marginal contributions. 
>Note that this continues to be a bit subjective, but having a group of 
>arbiters should keep it ?fair?.
> 
>I further propose that the ?Acknowledgements? section at the back of the 
>spec be structured to include subsections listing:
>A subsection listing current voting members of the SSTC
>A subsection for all contributors to previous SAML releases that did not 
>contribute to the current version
>A subsection for any other contributors (e.g. authors of input documents 
>such as the Liberty specs).
> 
>We?ll discuss it on today?s call?
>Rob Philpott
>Senior Consulting Engineer 
>RSA Security Inc. 
>Tel: 781-515-7115 
>Mobile: 617-510-0893 
>Fax: 781-515-7020 
>mailto:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com
> 
>
>  
>