I agree with Carsten that the "editor" marked can be applied in quite
varied fashions. Even so, as a reader I assume that the person or
persons marked as "editor" were the pen-holders during the later stages
of the document. What exactly that means also varies based on the
process being used, as I presume it is different in a github based
process than when the pen-holder keeps a master copy on their computer.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/26/2026 4:53 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 2026-05-26, at 09:41, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
On reflection, I have to agree. A possible distinction then is whether there is an expectation
that the person in the "editor" generated substantial portions of text. I'm listed on
documents as editor where I generated most of the text, so I don't know if that holds. I do
believe that the editor role was assigned specifically so there would be a lower degree of
"ownership".
Stating that editor implies the same responsibility as authors, but not
necessarily original authorship of content, is probably the right way to handle
this. Though I think you need to acknowledge that someone might be designated
as editor rather than author for multiple reasons.
I don’t think we have a common understanding of what distinguishes an editor
role from an author role.
Right now, that attribute is an ornament that can be applied arbitrarily.
Grüße, Carsten
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
