One document matched: draft-carpenter-whats-an-author-02.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- You want a table of contents -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- Use symbolic labels for references -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<!-- This sorts the references -->
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<!-- Change to "yes" if someone has disclosed IPR for the draft -->
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<!-- This defines the specific filename and version number of your draft (and inserts the appropriate IETF boilerplate -->
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-carpenter-whats-an-author-02" ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="What's an Author?">What is an Author of an IETF Stream Draft?</title>

    <author fullname="Brian Carpenter" initials="B. E." surname="Carpenter">
      <organization abbrev="Univ. of Auckland"/>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Department of Computer Science</street>
          <street>University of Auckland</street>
          <street>PB 92019</street>
          <city>Auckland</city>
          <region/>
          <code>1142</code>
          <country>New Zealand</country>
        </postal>
        <email>brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>


 

    <date day="14" month="June" year="2015"/>

    <abstract>
      <t>This draft suggests guidelines for assigning authorship in IETF stream
      Internet-Drafts.
      It also discusses the related issues of acknowledgements, editors and contributors.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction and Scope">
<t>
The question sometimes comes up of who should be listed as the author(s)
of a draft, who should be listed as editors or contributors, and what acknowledgements
are appropriate. The guidelines below are aimed at Internet-Drafts in the IETF
publication stream <xref target="RFC4844"/>, <xref target="RFC5741"/>. 
</t><t>
Any inconsistency with
<xref target="RFC7221"/> is unintentional, and related issues are discussed
in <xref target="I-D.crocker-rfc2418bis-wgguidelines"/>.
The guidelines are intended to be compatible with the RFC Editor's style guide 
<xref target="RFC7322"/>, with the RFC Editor's authorship policies 
<eref target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2015-May/008869.html"/>
and with the IESG statement on Internet Draft Authorship
<eref target="http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/internet-draft-authorship.html"/>.</t>

<t>This draft has been written to aid discussion and is not intended to be published
as an RFC. It in no way, shape or form intends to change the IETF standards process
and the related rules on intellectual property. It could be used as input to revision
of the Tao of the IETF or of other relevant IETF documents.</t>
</section>

<section title="General Issues of Authorship Ethics">
<t>There are some quite general aspects of the ethics of professional authorship
of academic or technical documents that naturally apply to IETF drafts.
This is not the place for a detailed discussion of authorship ethics, but the
most important points are 
<list style="symbols">
<t>Factual accuracy.</t>
<t>Avoidance of misleading or obfuscating statements.</t>
<t>Avoidance of misleading omissions.</t>
<t>Balance between opposing arguments, when relevant.</t>
<t>Careful acknowledgement and citation of sources and references.</t>
<t>Avoidance of unacknowledged plagiarism.</t>
</list>
</t><t>
Factual accuracy includes accuracy about who wrote the document:
only people who made a real contribution should be listed as authors
or contributors. </t>

<t>Other aspects are that personal or business considerations should not affect
accuracy and balance, and any hidden conflicts of interest should be documented.
Corrections, clarifications and retractions should be made promptly when needed. </t>

<t>Many academic journals and universities have published policies about
authorship ethics. Examples from life sciences are
<eref target="http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/"/>,
and <eref target="http://www.apa.org/research/responsible/publication/"/>.
</t>

<t>However, the IETF has some peculiarities. Perhaps the most important is that we generally
encourage the free flow of ideas and their re-use in fresh documents. Sometimes that
means that small or large sections of text are copied from one document into
another, and subsequently changed as the discussion evolves. In the world at large
that is considered to be plagiarism. In the IETF, we consider it to be normal
business as long as due acknowledgement is given. This document is specifically
scoped for IETF Internet-Drafts and is not intended to apply to non-IETF Internet-Drafts.
Some parts might apply to other document streams but that is incidental.
(See Section 5 of <xref target="RFC4844"/> for an explanation of the various document streams.)
</t>

</section>
<section title="Authors">
<t>Authors are people who have made a substantial creative contribution to the document.
Normally this means writing text or drawing diagrams. Occasionally, with the consent
of the other authors, it means making some other substantial creative contribution to
the document, for example by writing a software implementation as part of the design process.
It's a matter of judgement whether a person who simply makes a key intellectual contribution
should rank as an author.
</t><t>
People who did not make any such substantial contribution should not be listed
as authors. Funding support, professional reputation, managerial or supervisory status,
and CV embellishment don't count. It's also worth noting that in the IETF, authorship by
an employee does not imply endorsement by the employer. Therefore, authors
should not be added just because of who they work for. </t>

<t>There are quite a few subjective judgements to be made about whether a contribution
is substantial enough to count as authorship. What fraction of new or corrected text counts?
Is a particular brilliant idea enough? Should the author of a previous trail-blazing
document be invited to join? Should someone who promised to contribute significantly,
but only contributed fragments, be removed? It's hard to give definite guidelines for
such cases.
</t><t>In normal circumstances, people should never be listed as authors without
their explicit permission. In case of doubt, the person submitting the draft
should check with each listed author in advance to avoid any misunderstandings.
If an author wishes to withdraw, this should be honoured, although the person
may then be listed as a contributor or be mentioned in the acknowledgements.
</t><t>
The practical impact is that the authors will be listed as such on the front page if
the document becomes an RFC, and in public bibliographies.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Contributors">
<t>Contributors are people who made smaller creative contributions to the document
than the authors, for example providing initial ideas that others have transformed
into publishable text, or drafting only a few paragraphs.
</t><t>
People who did not make any such contribution should not be listed as contributors.
People should not normally be listed as contributors without their explicit permission.
</t><t>
The dividing line between contributors and authors is a matter of judgement and cannot
be rigidly defined. However, the RFC Editor's policy is to query any document that has
more than five listed authors. Any list of more than five authors will need to be
negotiated if the document is approved for publication as an RFC.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Editors">
<t>
When a document has a large number of contributors and potential authors, it may
be appropriate to designate one or two people as both "Authors" and "Editors" and list the others
as contributors. The editors will indeed do the actual work of editing the document
on behalf of the community.
The practical impact of this is that the editors will be listed
as such on the front page if the document becomes an RFC, and in public bibliographies.
</t>
<t>In some cases, it may be appropriate to retain a list of authors of which one or two
are designated as editors. What matters is "truth in advertising": the people involved
should all feel happy that the designations of editors, authors and contributors are
fair and accurate.</t>
<t>It's worth noting that in some people's opinion, once a draft has been adopted by a WG,
all future changes are performed as an editing action on behalf of the WG. Traditionally,
the IETF has chosen to retain the word "Author" in most cases, with the formal designation
of editors being exceptional. Some other standards development organizations always remove
individual authorship when a document is formally adopted. </t>
</section>
<section title="List of Acknowledgements">
<t>
Acknowledgements should be given to people who have made significant creative
contributions smaller than those from the authors and contributors, or to people
who have made useful comments, provided critical reviews, or otherwise contributed
significantly to the development of the document. If text or ideas have been adopted from
other written sources, including IETF documents, clearly a reference is an ethical
requirement, but an acknowledgement might also be appropriate.</t>
<t>
Acknowledgements may also be given
to people or organizations that have given material support and assistance, but
this should not include the authors' regular employers unless there are
exceptional circumstances.
</t><t>
An acknowledgement should be written as a description of a fact. It does not 
and should not signify that the person acknowledged agrees with or supports
the document. In general, people who do not wish to be listed as an author or
a contributor, but have in fact made a significant contribution, should
be given an acknowledgement. In unusual circumstances, acknowledgements of
contributions have specifically indicated that the contributor does not support the
document as posted. Language such as the following might be
used:
<list style="none"><t>
	Thanks to <insert names> for their valuable comments and
	help during the development of this document, even
	though they did not fully agree with the WG's conclusion.
</t></list>
</t>
<t>When in doubt, it is usually better to include an acknowledgement than to omit it.</t>
</section>

<section anchor="bisDrafts" title="Revised or Replacement Documents">
<t>A common occurrence is that an IETF document from
some years ago requires updating. This is often done by
people who were not the original authors. The question then arises
of whether to list the original authors on the "bis" draft, even if
they are long gone from IETF participation. </t>

<t>When an Internet-Draft is prepared by one or more new people
but reuses significant amounts of text from one or more
earlier RFCs and/or I-Ds, a situation arises that often requires
thought and careful handling.  The criteria above suggest that
the authors of the original documents should continue to be
listed as authors.  After all, there is rarely any question that
the earlier publications constitute "a substantial creative
contribution" to the revised document.  However, there are no
guarantees that the prior authors will want to be listed as
authors of the new draft and take on whatever responsibilities
that implies.  Ideally, those assembling the newer version will
consult with the authors of the previous ones and make
mutually acceptable arrangements, but, especially when that is
not feasible, sensitivity to all possible issues will be
needed.</t>
</section>

<section title="Other Exceptions and Discussions">
<t>It goes without saying that normally nobody should be listed as an author, contributor or
editor against their will. Ideally, the parties involved will agree among themselves, or defer
to the judgement of the WG Chairs or Area Directors. Practice may vary between WGs.
However, we need flexibility to deal with unusual cases, such as these:
<list style="symbols">
<t>As noted above, an acknowledgement is a statement of fact (the person contributed
to the discussion). In some cases it may be included even if the person acknowledged
objects, for example if they made a suggestion that might later be viewed as prior art.</t>
<t>Generalising the point made in <xref target="bisDrafts"/>, an earlier author or 
contributor may deserve to be listed, even if they cannot be contacted
when a document is updated after a long interval. 
Each such case needs to be considered on its merits.</t>
<t>In particular, an author or contributor might be deceased.</t>
</list></t>
</section>

<section title="Intellectual Property Rights">
<t>This document does not discuss intellectual property rights and in no way
preempts or alters the IETF's rules and requirements concerning intellectual
property rights. In particular some of the ethical guidelines above might
be mandatory requirements under those rules. All IETF participants are strongly
advised to be familiar with the rules. </t>

<t>It is worth noting that if a draft includes complete acknowledgements and references,
it will be much simpler to clarify its status as possible prior art in years to come.
</t><t>
Copyright in IETF documents is governed by BCP 78 <xref target="RFC5378"/> and its predecessors,
the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions, and applicable national and international law.
</t><t>
The word "contributor" used in this draft might not mean the same thing as the word
"Contributor" used in BCP 79 <xref target="RFC3979"/>. That BCP should be consulted by
anyone concerned about the IETF requirement for disclosure of intellectual
property rights. </t>

</section>

    <section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>None, really. </t>
    </section>
    
    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This memo includes no request to IANA.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="ack" title="Acknowledgements">
 
      <t>Valuable comments were received from
      Loa Andersson,
      Andy Bierman,
      Carsten Bormann,
      Dave Crocker,
      David Farmer,
      John Klensin (who also contributed some text),
      Larry Kreeger,
      Eliot Lear,
      Tom Petch,
      Alexandru Petrescu,
      Yaron Sheffer,
      and
      Joe Touch.
      </t>
      <t>Especially given the topic of this draft, the author apologises for any accidental omissions.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="changes" title="Change log">
      <t>draft-carpenter-whats-an-author-02, 2015-06-14: more comments, nits, some
      reorganisation. </t>
      <t>draft-carpenter-whats-an-author-01, 2015-05-30: incorporating community comments, citing
      RFC Editor and IESG statements. </t>
      <t>draft-carpenter-whats-an-author-00, 2015-04-24: original version. </t>
     
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
 
    <references title="Informative References">
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7322'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5378'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3979'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5741'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7221'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4844'?>
      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.crocker-rfc2418bis-wgguidelines.xml"?>
      

    </references>
    
 
    
  </back>
</rfc>