I'm not dead set against defining "previous authors". The only disadvantage that I see is introducing more complexity to the editorial process. If that is needed to resolve issues, legal or otherwise, we should accept that.
On 9 June 2017 at 12:41, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9 June 2017 at 08:49, Guus der Kinderen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > You're making sense to me (which appears to be a habit of yours > *hattip*). > > > > Dave's original question was if he should propose a policy change to the > > Board. Although Dave certainly has a keen perspective of things, I think > he > > falls in the "engineer" category, more than in the "legal counsel" > category. > > Apologies to Dave if I sell him short here. Perhaps it'd be good to take > one > > step back, and propose that the Board finds legal advise on the subject. > We > > could look at larger standards development organizations, as Peter > > suggested. Another option would be to reserve a certain amount of money > and > > seek legal counsel of our own. Also, some of our larger sponsors might > have > > inhouse legal departments. Perhaps they could help out. > > > > I am, indeed, not any kind of lawyer. > > However, I don't think this is particularly contentious. We have lots > of documents for which one of the "Authors" hasn't made any input for > several revisions. I see three cases for moving Authors to a "Previous > Authors" section: > > a) This legal issue, which might expose authors and their employers. > By clearly marking that an author is not current, it should address > the concerns of (for example) Cisco's legal department. > b) The case where an Author discovers their name still against a XEP > and is concerned that the XEP misrepresents their views. I believe we > have had such cases, and although obviously Authors can already > request their removal in entirety, this also removes all > acknowledgement for previous hard work. > c) The case where Authors are simply unresponsive to concrete > proposals and stall the standards process. While Council can again > remove an Author entirely, this often seems like a nuclear option - as > if Council is punishing, rather than simply moving things along. > > I see, on the other hand, no advantage to *not* having a Previous > Authors section which properly acknowledges those who have put > considerable effort into the document. I'm also happy to list these at > the top of the document, maybe just like: > > Authors: Peter Saint-Andre, Dave Cridland (Previous) > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
