Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: [CLBP] Participation agreement

From:Sai Emrys <saizai@...>
Date:Sunday, October 29, 2006, 11:31
On 10/29/06, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote:
> What are the reasons for the selection of the credit points method? > And is it intended to be this way with all its consequences?
's my attempt at fairness.
> If 100 points are available per book, then there will practicably only > be one primary author and in the presense of a primary author, there > will be max. one co-author. > > And if three people write about 1/3 of the content each, then there > will be no primary author (which may be ok). At maximum, there will > be only three authors (primary or co-), which I find strange if large > portions of the book are written by more people to equal parts.
Primary / co authorship in this case is meant as "what goes on the cover", basically. The reason for max-3 is simply that AFAIK that's the normal limit practically speaking. On digging out my Ling 1 book (Contemporary Linguistics , it seems I was wrong on that - there are 4 coauthors listed. On the front page, it says two are "edited by..." and two are "US edition prepared by...". It additionally lists single individual authors - some of whom are in those 4, some not - for each of the chapters. So perhaps instead it could be: * for coauthorship: up to 4 people w/ most points, minimum 10 * for authorship of a particular chapter: ditto, percentage wise
> You could also end up with no author at all, and even quite quickly: > namely if at least four people write the book to equal parts. (Having > no author is not impossible: scientific conference books often only > have an editor in the main book registration entry, since there are a > lot of authors writing only small portions of the book).
*nod* That's what I was thinking. One can't viably list a dozen authors on the front; it becomes just a multi-author collection instead, which is treated differently.
> So the more people participate, the less likely major contributors > become co-authors, even if their absolute amount of contribution does > not change. > > All this may be intended, I am merely wondering whether the > consequences of the system are well understood. > > I am sorry that this is kind of a destructive criticism right now, > because I don't present an alternative system that would work 'better' > from my point of view.
*shrug* Criticism is fine. :-)
> Further, I currently don't want to participate, so my opinion should > be viewed as a small comment. Only my 2¢.
*nod* Maybe later eh? - Sai

Reply

James W. <emindahken@...>