Slightly different from and generalising on interesting discussions like that one, I wonder whether the increasingly widespread practice of including author contribution statements in many CS journals would also be a viable practice for CS conferences?
I believe this question is a valid one because, while it is usual in some CS sub-domains to put the authors in descending order of their contributions, in other sub-domains of CS it is usual to use alphabetical order. Independent of the preferred order, it may always be reasonable to indicate the corresponding author. However, to increase clarity about the actual roles (e.g., first, senior, consulting, data source, equal, ...) in a rather mixed authorship culture and order-independent, I would consider contribution statements to be relevant for conferences as well. So, again my question: Why would or wouldn't it make sense to adopt the existing practice of journals also for conference papers (whether or not using a quasi-standard like CReDiT or short variants just saying "all authors contributed equally")? Would such statements be a practical means to, for example, increase transparency of contributions and fairness of competitions?
Some background: In recent years, the DORA concept is increasingly adopted, by hiring committees for instance, with one principle of it being to deviate from entirely bibliometry-oriented assessments of candidates. And it turns out that it is not straightforward to individualise contribution and to qualitatively focus on relevant research output of an individual without more informative contribution statements. Of course, there might be a host of other reasons for or against the adoption of author contribution statements.