On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:14 AM, George Michaelson <ggm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Currently, IETF standards activity carries little or no weight for an > academic career profile. It doesn't appear to have a weighting compared to > peer review publication. I think this is a shame, because the contribution > is as substantive, if not more so. And, since time is limited and choices > have to be made, I believe good students/postdocs don't come into our space > because the payback isn't there compared to submission into the peer-review > process. > > (happy to be corrected. this is a belief, not a proven theory) I can confirm your theory, at least regarding me. I come from academia. I came with some enthusiasm, happy to try to get involved in IETF activities; I subscribed to few WG mailing list, but after some time I discovered that (unfortunately) the payback for unit of work was much less than just publishing scientific paper. So, I unhappily unsubscribed from most of the ML and I stay here, lurking in the background, waiting for some interesting subject... Too bad. > > On that basis, things we do which make it easier for academic and research > assessment processes for STEM careers to consider our work as 'worthy' are > good and useful, because they help to direct skilled new brains into our > zombie pool. > > I think ORCID would be the kind of thing which helps. > > -G > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:08 AM, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >Having an IETF identity is OK if all you ever publish is in the IETF. >> > Some of our >> >participants also publish at other SDOs such as IEEE, W3C, ITU, and quite >> > a few publish >> >Academic papers. Using the same identifier for all these places would be >> > useful, and >> >that single identifier is not going to be an @ietf.org email address. >> >> If you want Yahoo mail or gmail or pobox.com, you know where to find it. >> >> Or people here are, I expect, mostly able to arrange for their own >> vanity domains. >> >> R's, >> John, abuse@xxxxxxxx > >