On Sep 12, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 9/12/14, 9:58 AM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>> 
>> On Sep 12, 2014, at 8:14 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 9/12/14, 9:02 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Unfortunately, XEP-0155 was only ever used in specs that Ian Paterson
>>>> worked on (XEP-0136, XEP-0116). All of his protocols were needlessly
>>>> complex and now we need to deal with the consequences (he disappeared
>>>> from the XMPP community in ~2007).
>>> 
>>> This raises the question of what we do about authors who are no longer 
>>> actively participating in the XSF's standards process (I ran into this 
>>> recently with fixes to various Jingle specs). I wonder if it would make 
>>> sense to specify who the maintainer is for any given XEP. For example we 
>>> could add a line at the top of XEP-0166 like so:
>>> 
>>>   Authors: Scott Ludwig, Joe Beda, Peter Saint-Andre,
>>>   Robert McQueen, Sean Egan, Joe Hildebrand
>>> 
>>>   Maintainer: Peter Saint-Andre
>>> 
>>> Something like this would provide recognition to the original authors while 
>>> indicating who to contact about current issues.
>>> 
>>> Peter
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> One approach that's worked well in IETF Working Groups I've chaired is to 
>> list current editor(s) instead of author(s), and listing authors in 
>> "Contributors" or other such section (separate from Acknowledgements).   One 
>> reason to do this in the IETF is eases RFC publishing sign-offs, as the RFC 
>> Editor requires each and every listed editor/author to say "Okay" when 
>> publishing an RFC.
> 
> Yeah we don't have that step. Also the IETF has a rule against more than 5 
> authors, so some folks end up in the Contributors section.

I still like the approach as it the most currently active persons get top 
recognition while providing amble recognition who contributors over possibly 
many years and many revisions... and provides a clear contact.  I do like at 
least breaking out the maintainer as you suggest for the latter reason.

-- Kurt

> 
> Peter
> 
> 

Reply via email to