[Osmf-talk] public document writing process (was: microgrants)

[R. K. Belew]

On 1/14/20 12:17 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> I had assumed as much. I found it important enough to discuss these
> issues themselves, and not frame them as a simple tooling question on
> the sidelines of microgrants.

good move!

> I think that a pragmatic compromise could be the publication of, with
> every document or draft, a small "meta" information that explains who
> participated to which degree in coming up with the document (perhaps
> telling us who was the "lead", if any, who made "major contributions"
> and simply not mentioning those who just fixed a comma, or something),
> and also a small "change log" that would tersely point out the major
> changes since the last draft, or perhaps on a first draft outline which
> ideas had been tried and rejected, if any.

I am reminded of the "CRediT" taxonomy of author contributions:

https://dev.biologists.org/content/author-contributions

This has gained traction in scientific pubs like Science.


-- 
Richard K. Belew
UC San Diego | hancock