Thanks Dirk. Indeed, these are useful questions; ultimately, it's why I'm emphasizing this is a 'ctb' role, from ?person
> Use for authors who have made smaller contributions (such as code patches > etc.) but should not show up in the package citation. I think anonymous/pseudonymous contributions in that role are fine. Authors+maintainers still own responsibility for vetting such contributions for potential security risks, etc. For R CMD check, yes, there are ample false negatives on person() entries, but false positives carry different weight. They should be removed, modulo effort to implement, if we agree they're indeed false positives. Mike C On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 12:06 PM Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> wrote: > > > Two meta-issues > > - You as maintainer of a project are its steward; do you feel you can entrust > the experience the users of your package will have to someone for whom you > yourself have no email or name? > > Now, that question is rhetorical in the context of your repo as the thread > demonstrates. However, other maintainers may choose differently. > > - Given both the above, and that you know R CMD check will nag over a lack of > (first and) family name, do you think you must add a contributor (who > seemingly prefers to anonymous) to the DESCRIPTION file? You could simply > decide not to. > > All this is of course somewhat acadenmic as we have packages on CRAN with > author / contributor / creator tags of first and family name which ... are in > fact 'noms de plumes' i.e. not actually theirs so overall all this really is > a call to the shrug emoji. Turtles all the way down. > > ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > > Dirk > > -- > dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
