Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > The way to fix Academia is to look at the funding structures that support it. ... > So the way to fix the problem is to fix Academia. You highlight the problem well that there are multiple confounding issues that all mingle together. (Most) RFCs are typically harder to get published than academic papers. They take multiple years to get published and require extensive negotiations with many parties. This leads to: 1) Its not really a viable goal for students to take on, since they're likely to graduate before the completion of the publication effort. Nor can you ensure consensus, and isn't easy "fallback publication venues" if you fail the IETF as the tier-1 to publish in. 2) That leaves staff and faculty to do the work, which means funding agencies must understand both the long term commitment required (2-3 years beyond the point of the solution being initially documented) and the cost required (its not the travel cost -- its the labor required for said negotiations). Then there is the "running code" cost, that will likely keep changing as the eventually-to-be-standard keeps changing underneath the code. When I've discussed contracting with funding sources before for research work, and explained situation #2 I've often given them two quotes: one just to do the work and a second that included a standardization-effort cost that wasn't even assured. Many organizations saw the second and understandably didn't take that option. And then, yes, you're right that academia must change as well. Back in early days the IETF was seen as a place to do research. Now its seen as a place to do "real stuff" and many opinions exist that its "not researchy enough to warrant our participation". So, yes, I agree: both funding and academia itself needs to change in order to bring them back in full force (we have light participation now, but nothing like we had in the past). The IRTF has greatly helped improve things lately, IMHO and fortunately. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI
