OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

security-services message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: counter proposal on contributor/acknowledgement lists...

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.


"Philpott, Robert" <rphilpott@rsasecurity.com>

08/17/2004 09:35 AM

        To:        <security-services@lists.oasis-open.org>
        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:  
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


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]