Hi all,
A comment about handling unavailable authors during RFC final review
below --
On 5/26/26 2:32 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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.
[JM] Each author must provide approval during final review. If an author
is unable to give approval, they can be moved to either the contributors
or acknowledgements section, or they can remain listed as an author with
a Stream Manager providing approval in their place. Please see
https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfc-publication-process#unavailable-authors
Best regards,
Jean
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]
