RE: [security-services] counter proposal on contributor/acknowledgement lists...

[<Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>]

+1


Regards, Frederick
 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext John Kemp [mailto:john.kemp@nokia.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 11:01 AM
To: ext Maryann Hondo
Cc: Philpott, Robert; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [security-services] counter proposal on
contributor/acknowledgement lists...

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
> 
>
>  
>


To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security-services/members/l
eave_workgroup.php.