I think the question about authorship is different and I think needs to be decided by the person based on an own assessment on a case by case basis. However, for IAB docs we usually don’t have author affiliations as we just say IAB. If Mallory wants to add her current affiliation to the authors info that would be totally fine for me as she is not on the IAB anymore either.
However, for the PC and workshop participation, which are separate sections in the appendix, I really think we should give the affiliation, if at all, of the time of when the workshop happened. Because this might provide actual information about the kind of input that was provided to the workshop. Mirja > On 20. Dec 2024, at 18:50, Wes Hardaker <harda...@isi.edu> wrote: > >> >> >> No I actually think this should reflect the affiliation at the time of the >> workshop, > > I think this is a problem much bigger than workshops. RFCs come into the > same question at times when a draft gets to AUTH48 sometimes authors change > their affiliation at the last second. > > As everyone knows, the IETF is an odd place where "we work as individuals but > yet somehow the company name still really really matters". I cloud see CDT > being annoyed at losing publicity (as would potentially cisco, or USC, or > Mozilla, or ...). > >> or we could just remove affiliation in that section completely for all. In >> other reports I found both cases, with or without affiliation. Maybe we >> could also established a common practice for future reports…? > > It does seem the last few we've published removes affiliation, which makes > sense. Though it does remove transparency to easily detect if one company > flooded the workshop or something. > > -- > Wes Hardaker > USC/ISI
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
