Cite includes non-author maintainers in "author" list -- should it? Add an override for this?

[fingolfin]

I noticed that Cite explicitly includes both package authors and maintainers in the citation it produces.

I am slightly surprised by this. But I can see some merit for it (as well as against it).

In any case, I'd like to establish whether this was an intentional decision (and by whom?), and then we can perhaps explicitly mention it in the Cite documentation.

I also wonder if this is something that packages should be able to control, as I am not sure all package authors would agree with this. E.g. we now include "The GAP Team" as a maintainer on many packages, and it seems weird to list that virtual entity as an author in bib entry.

We could filter out this specific "person" explicitly, of course. But perhaps we could also add an optional CiteAsAuthor := true/false to Person records in PackageInfo.g: if this field is present, then Cite uses only it to decide whether to include a person record; if it is absent, we do what we do now.

[ChrisJefferson]

I'd be interested in what other package authors think, I know digraphs and semigroups have picked up lots of people over the year, so what does @james-d-mitchell think?

[james-d-mitchell]

Thanks for the ping @ChrisJefferson, I think listing the non-author non-maintainers in the citation is probably not right. Probably also including the non-author maintainers in the citation is also not right. I hope this helps!

[Stefan-Kohl]

I think the best equivalent of a non-author maintainer for print publications is probably an employee of the publisher who handles the respective publication. And such employee is commonly not mentioned when citing the publication.

[fieker]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 02:20:43PM -0800, Stefan Kohl wrote: I think the best equivalent of a non-author maintainer for print publications is probably an employee of the publisher who handles the respective publication. And such employee is commonly not mentioned when citing the publication.

But this emplyee is not updating, sometimes substantially over the years, the publication.... (And (s)he is getting paid for the job)

…

-- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #5649 (comment) You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ***@***.***>

[Stefan-Kohl]

@fieker Sure, point taken. So, how about mentioning non-author maintainers in a separate category — like e.g. editors for print publications?

However, if the updates are indeed 'substantial' (i.e. in the sense of the word, contribute to the substance of the package rather than merely keep it working under changing external conditions plus some cosmetics), then IMHO the maintainer is no longer just a maintainer, but also becomes an author.