@krzysztof here is my attempt at an updated context: https://github.com/kyleniemeyer/codemeta/blob/patch-2/codemeta.jsonld
Spreadsheet for @kyleniemeyer https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12HgydAPPl1fUGnKGe5sTbmf5tR9uTeHqAyy2tYgrw8o/edit#gid=137552421
acabunoc @acabunoc gets ready to spam kyle
Lemme see
@mbjones yup - take a look at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/113p7tQz3Pw8wYIzQnSBrCOmGv2LJZ7nBAzKh1ZtG6G4/edit for all the sources for the additional columns from our group
@kyleniemeyer @danielkatz @ashleysa indeed. open to ideas but here's one proposal for you: If no one wants to take on a leadership role in wrangling and seeing it out the door; I'm happy to cover that and play first-author. If someone (cough Kyle) wants to do that I'd love to make them first author, maybe Ashley as second, and propose I go at the end ("senior author"). We order the others by some arbitrary metric, and we say authorship order was determined by "the consensus of the workshop" if we comment on it at all. Does this sound fair?
As I said at the meeting, I think we either should list authors based on contribution (perhaps determined via the general consensus of the participants), or we should alphabetize (other than the lead author), as people who see a citation to the document will assume that we are doing one of these: If the order is alphabetic, it will be assumed that we used alphabetic order, and if the order is anything else, it will be assumed that we ordered according to contribution. (I can't believe I'm writing this badly while listening to a talk on bad writing)