Hello everybody,
My main (bikeshed) point is farther down, but on this occasion, I'd like
to congratulate Martin T. on framing the authorship issue as a
responsibility issue.
On 2026-05-26 10:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 26-May-26 09:53, Jay Daley wrote:
On 23 May 2026, at 09:07, Brian E Carpenter
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 23-May-26 01:23, Salz, Rich wrote:
There is at least one place where there is no default:
10. Dispute> Disputes about authorship, editorship, contributors and
acknowledgements will not be settled by the RPC and must be resolved
by the relevant RFC stream according to its own procedures.
True, and I really think we shouldn't burden the RPC with that sort
of issue.
How do you propose disputes are handled regarding RFCs published
before streams were introduced?
Streams were introduced years ago. Is somebody seriously suggesting
there are disputes re. authoring for RFCs that are older than that? Like
"I really should have been listed as author of RFC XYZ because ..., but
I only just now found out that I'm not."???
Hmm. I wonder how they are handled today? I suggest we simply make them
out of scope
for this draft. I was implicitly assuming that.
Yes. We can't change the past. If there's really a case where an author
has been forgotten, the RFC should be reissued with a new number, and
that would mean that we'd have to allocate it to a stream first. It
wouldn't be too difficult to do for a single RFC.
Regards, Martin.
Personal opinion: I'd like there to be a "claim" procedure so the
existing streams could
claim older RFCs, to reduce the amount of Legacy RFCs. But that would
have a lot of
ramifications and corner-cases, so it's definitely future work if it
ever gets done.
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
