* To be an author you have to have made a substantial contribution to the work. * No one may be an author without their consent. * If that group gets size XXL, use Contributors. * The text is the authors' responsibility. If they can't stand up for what's there, they should remove themselves as authors. That includes consensus text with which they disagree. * Don't plagiarize work. If you had AI generate text, say so. * Exceptions exist, and we'll deal with them on a case-by-case basis.
To EKR's point:
I agree that they don't, and as indicated in my previous message, this limitationjust seems to be directed towards keeping this document within the scope of RSWG. However, the better approach would be to bring this to a venue with the right scope, which is to say to the streams.
Sorry, that's just a backdoor argument without substance. We are VERY liberal in how drafts are handled, and the exact oppsite with RFCs. Readers do not care about streams. They get what they get with drafts. But we should pride ourselves on the RFC series. That is this organization's primary output.
Eliot On 24.06.2026 14:27, Salz, Rich wrote:
I agree, again, with everything EKR wrote.If the goal is to be consistent across streams, adopting this document in the smallest and least important* of streams and saying that the other streams can modify and adopt this as they see fit is not the way to achieve that goal. Have the largest and most important* stream process it first.*By least and most important, I am referring to the participation and readership size, as well as the impact on the industry. Nobody really cares how “x+y<z” is written in RFC source, nor should they; they care about things like the best way to use TLS, for example. Taking Eliot’s lens and thinking of the reader, this document does not belong here.
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
