Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 11:48:43AM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:38 AM Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > > This could be made to matter to tenure and promotion committees
>> >
>> > if you mean academic, like ha ha.
>> >
>>
>> The traditional academic lit model is dying. There is actually scope
>> to replace it but we can merely be part of a wider movement.
....
> I feel like this is veering off-topic for this list.
PHB did veer slightly off, but only to make the point that the current model
is dying, but that we can be part of the solution. We could even lead it in
our part of the space.
My point is that we need to better acknowledge contributions in the form of
review into our documents. I pointed to the datatracker that keeps track of
formal reviews, and that is definitely good data, but I feel that it needs to
make into the document in a way that provides clear credit.
This is part of the diversity consideration because not everyone can
contribute by writing documents, but they often can contribute through
review. Review is as important, maybe even more important, than the writing
itself.
We do not, for instance, even have a clear tradition to acknowledge the WG
chairs in the documents, which makes it hard for employers to agree to
allocate valuable time that could (as Nico writes) be spend writing code, to
instead manage process.
I'd like the acknowledgements to be structured (i.e. present in the XML as
structured entries).
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
