+1
>________________________________
> From: Anthony Nadalin <tony...@microsoft.com>
>To: Eran Hammer <e...@hueniverse.com>; "oauth@ietf.org WG (oauth@ietf.org)"
><oauth@ietf.org>
>Sent: Friday, June 8, 2012 7:18 PM
>Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] New draft process / editor role
>
>
>
>Why rant here, talk to the chairs or AD
>
>Sent from my Windows Phone
>
>________________________________
> From: Eran Hammer
>Sent: 6/8/2012 6:58 PM
>To: oauth@ietf.org WG (oauth@ietf.org)
>Subject: [OAUTH-WG] New draft process / editor role
>
>
>Today, a new draft of the OAuth 2.0 specification was published.
>
>* I had nothing to do with this draft. I did not edit or authored it. I didn't
>know it was being published.
>* The draft was authored by Mike Jones and published by Dick Hardt.
>* Neither one is an editor or an active author of the document.
>
>Here are the facts:
>
>* On 5/31 Hannes asked me to publish a new draft with the proposed changes
>posted by Mike by Sunday 6/3 (within 3 days). The chairs did not offer any
>reason for requesting such a quick turnaround. It took the chairs weeks to
>respond to me about the request for ABNF or error text. There wasn't any
>urgency when it was their task.
>* I promptly replied that I plan to wait until the ABNF is completed before
>publishing a new draft. The ABNF, which is the only pending DISCUSS for the
>core specification, is still being actively debated on the list and was
>clearly presented as work in progress.
>* Hannes did not reply back with any other instructions.
>* Mike replied back trying to speak on behalf of the chairs, suggesting that
>'version numbers are cheap'. I replied that my time isn't.
>* At no point did any of the chairs indicated any issue with my publication
>schedule. The full thread is here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg09111.html.
>* Today, using Dick Hardt author credit on the document, Mike published his
>draft. There is no indication that changes were made by someone other than the
>editor or that the added sections are still a work in progress and pending
>consensus as is WG practice (e.g. [[ Pending Consensus ]] or [[ Proposed
>Text]]).
>* No one has offered any explanation as to why the editor was pushed aside and
>blindsided with a new draft. There was no communication or any attempt to from
>the chairs, Mike, Dick, or anyone else.
>* After posting the new draft, Mike emailed the IESG to resolve a pending
>DISCUSS item on the core specification, something that is clearly my role and
>handled by me so far. I was not included in the email list but received a copy
>through the tracker system as author.
>
>Publishing a new draft must be done by a listed author. The only reason Dick
>and David are listed is historical in regognition of their initial
>contribution. Both David and Dick offered to remove their name from the top
>credits in the past (the reason Dick gave at the time was that the document
>was clearly my work). Using the author credit as a way to sidestep the editor
>is within the chairs right but that doesn't make it right.
>
>I have done absolutely nothing to justify taking the document editorial work
>from me, even temporarily. I have tirelessly published 26 drafts of this
>documenty. I have been working on this specification for almost 5 years. While
>the chairs can certainly decide who gets to edit and publish new drafts, there
>was no reason to do this here, and typically this is done when an editor is
>unresponsive and has to be removed. In this case, it was the chairs who were
>unresponsive and uncommunicative. They didn't think to even give me the
>courtesy of a head up.
>
>It is not clear to me what my standing is at this point with regard to this
>document. I will wait for further information from the AD to decide how to
>proceed.
>
>EH
>
>_______________________________________________
>OAuth mailing list
>OAuth@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
