Subject: Re: Number of Authors

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:12:43 -0400 (EDT)

there is no IETF process requirement for only one editor per document

Scott

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:55:34 -0400

>On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, W. Mark Townsley wrote:
>
> > I will have to give an example. Let's say I have two primary editors 
> splitting
> > the task of writing a single document. You proposed that this is broken.
>
>Authors write. Editors edit. I know that having two primary authors
>works well from my own experience - Gorry and I used that successfully
>on our ARQ RFC, where we both rewrote the entire document a number of
>times based on feedback received, and bickered over every sentence a
>number of times.
>
>However, I submit that having two editors attempting to manage and put
>together the disparate texts from a bunch of contributors doesn't
>work, and I can't find a real example where it has worked well. (MIBs
>don't count).

         Having multiple editors for MIBs doesn't work well either, at least
at the same time. In the past, the MIBs I have worked on have had a number of
co-authors, but only one co-author was elected to be the current editor 
(with editorial
powers over the document).  The election process was consisted basically of
passing the editor's token around amongst the co-authors. This process
was based solely on sharing the work, and did not need any sort of 
regulation that is
currently being discussed.

         --Tom

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.