# Put Names and Dates On Documents

DevFeed: [Put Names and Dates On Documents](<https://devfeed.tech/articles/put-names-and-dates-on-documents-26555.md>)

Original publisher: [Read original article](<https://infrequently.org/2025/08/names-and-dates-on-docs-every-time/>)

Author: Alex Russell

Published: 2025-08-13T00:00:00Z

Content type: opinion

Language: en

Sources: [Alex Russell](<https://devfeed.tech/sources/alex-russell.md>)

Topics: [Documentation](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/documentation.md>), [systems](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/systems.md>)

Tags: [docs](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/docs.md>), [engineering](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/engineering.md>), [process](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/process.md>), [technical](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/technical.md>), [work](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/work.md>), [writing](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/writing.md>)

## AI overview

The article argues that design and technical documents should include authors' names and dates in the document body. Inline attribution helps readers trace ideas and events, gives authors credit, and provides evidence for career evaluation, while edit histories may be inaccessible or lost when documents are copied, printed, or migrated.

## Source excerpt

Anyone who has worked closely with me, or followed on social media [, ], will have seen a post or comment to the effect of: Names and dates on docs. Every time. Don't forget. This is most often tacked onto design documents lacking inline attribution, and is phrased provocatively to make it sticky. Why do I care enough about this to be prescriptive -- bordering on pushy -- when colleagues accuse me of being Socratic to a fault about everything else? Because not only is unattributed writing a reliable time-waster, the careers of authors hang in the balance. Contents Weighing Up Inline Attribution "These blocks detract from readability." "There's already an edit log." "Our team is small. "Specifying an author elides the contributions of collaborators." Minimum Viable Attribution Having to work to find the best person to discuss a topic with is annoying, but in large organisations, the probability of authors having work appropriated without credit goes up when they fail to claim ownership of their writing. It should go without saying that this is toxic, and that functional engineering cultures look harshly on it. But to ward off bad behaviour, it helps to model what's healthy. The best reminder to cite work is for authors to name themselves. Doing this increases their stature, unsubtly encourages others to link and cite, and leaves a trail of evidence for authors to reference when building a case for promotion. The importance of evidence to support claims of design work in technical fields cannot be overstated. Having served on hiring and promotion committees for many years, I can unequivocally say that this collateral is often pivotal. The difference between "[x] promote" and "[x] do not promote" often comes down to the names on documents. Reviewers will pay attention to both the authors list and the propensity of design doc authors to cite others.1 Weighing Up Inline Attribution In response to unsubtle nudges, several recurring arguments are offered against explicit a