On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:14 AM, George Michaelson
<ggm(_at_)algebras(_dot_)org> 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(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com>
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(_at_)no(_dot_)sp(_dot_)am