[Standards] XEP Authors

Guus der Kinderen guus.der.kinderen at gmail.com
Fri Jun 9 11:30:15 UTC 2017


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 <dave at cridland.net> wrote:

> On 9 June 2017 at 08:49, Guus der Kinderen <guus.der.kinderen at gmail.com>
> 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: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20170609/69171731/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list