Re: Long lists of Editors and SpecRef entry generation

> On 12Sep 2022, at 0:21, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> 
> On 9/2/22 09:59, Manu Sporny wrote:
>> * Retiring the concept of Editors and Authors and moving to single
>> "Lead Contributors" that bundles Editors, Authors, and Chairs (we
>> really need to start recognizing Chairs) model... though I expect this
>> is going to be difficult to do from a cultural perspective.
> 
> There are a lot of types of contributions that go into a spec, where are you going to draw the line exactly?
> 
> The editors need to be called out in the spec because you need to know who to contact if there's something wrong with it.
> 
> The Acknowledgements section is for everything else.
> 
> If the concern is bibliographic data, I think it would be reasonable to just credit the relevant Working Group as the author rather than the editors individually. I always felt it was weird to be credited in the bibliographies as the “author” of the specs I edit.

I like this suggested approach.

The current state of things has issues: as long as editors are credited in bibliographies, those who did most of the work for most of the lifetime a spec tend to want to stay listed there as there’s no reason they should be excluded from getting the credit, but that means keeping their name up in the editor list even when they’re no longer working on the spec, which is a disservice to those who’re looking at the editors list to figure out who to talk to when they have issues/question about the spec.

Separating the part where we give credit from the part where indicate who is currently on the hook to deal with things seems useful.

—Florian

Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2022 20:43:30 UTC