Thanks for the careful reading, Martin. Quick responses in line:
On 26-May-26 18:30, Martin Thomson wrote:
Document: draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-02 Section 2 does not establish what I think is the key component of authorship I care for: responsibility. Or, if you prefer: ownership. And, by implication: endorsement. In my mind, an author claims responsibility for the contents of a document. Every word.
Yes, I agree, and it should be stated explicitly. (And it remains true even if an editor is actually holding the pen.)
As an example, in the RFC production process (which this document doesn't really need to treat in detail), this notion of responsibility is manifest in the expectation that authors sign off on the final document.
Yes, although iirc the RPC allows one author to explicitly delegate AUTH48 to a co-author.
The text talks about major contributors who request withdrawal of authorship status. The reason they do this is responsibility. If they can no longer stand by the content of the document for any reason (from availability of time to a strong disagreement with the direction taken), they can be moved to a contributors section. A contributor has no expectation of responsibility. This concept of responsibility should affect the rest of the document pretty substantially.
Actually, I'm not sure it does - because it was certain implicit in my thinking.
Section 3 talks about contributors making smaller contributions, but the example of withdrawal in Section 2 and the entirety of Section 4 makes that a lie. Contributors are simply people who made notable contributions to the document. The key difference is that they don't claim ownership of the content of the document.
Yes, but I don't think there's much in the section 3 text that is affected by that.
Section 4 would need significant reframing in light of this. The editor role carries a weaker notion of responsibility than an author.
I think that's debatable. We're not talking about a copy editor or a technical editor. I don't think an RFC2418-style editor has any less responsibility than their co-authors.
But that responsibility still applies. The implication is that they did not create the content of the document, though they are still responsible for what is there. Section 6 talks about previous versions. The responsibility razor here is a useful tool. Previous authors who are willing to assume responsibility for the new version should be listed as authors. Those who do not should be listed as contributors. (This is a very clean approach, but there is always room for finding mutually-agreeable outcomes, as the draft notes.)
That's certainly true for the IETF stream I'm not 100% certain for the other streams.
Section 7 says something that is odd in light of this framing: "It goes without saying that normally nobody should be listed as an author, contributor or editor against their will." My initial inclination was to say "well, then don't say it", but the responsibility razor cuts this statement cleanly as well. A person cannot be forced into authorship or editorship. However, a contributor has only contributed text, a listing as a contributor does not imply endorsement. Inclusion as a contributor is a strictly factual statement.
It should be. I agree that some rewriting is needed.
On that last point, it's probably worth a note saying that a document should acknowledge when a contributor strongly disagrees with something in a document.
Right, I have that covered for Acknowledgements but it should also be stated for contributors.
In retrospect, I really wish that I could disendorse much of RFC 6772, despite thinking that the small parts I wrote still hold up well.
Since you're listed as an author, that might be tricky...
Section 8 talks about tools, but the responsibility razor cleanly applies to the text about plagiarism. If content has been plagiarized, the authors are responsible. The authors might then attempt to hold a contributor responsible, but there is limit to how much responsibility can be deflected in these cases.
Yes, which is exactly why it says "The authors or editors remain entirely responsible for any content generated by AI" and "The authors or editors must verify that no unacceptable plagiarism has been performed by AI." You're right, the same applies to any form of contribution, not just AI contributions. Regards/Ngā mihi Brian
Thanks, Martin
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
