Re: Call for comment: <draft-iab-doi-04.txt> (Assigning Digital Object I

On 7/2/15 10:52 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> On 2015-7-2, at 09:30, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr> 
> wrote:
> > This RFC must not be published.
> >
> > DOIs are the opposite of what the IETF works for: the technical
> > standard is not freely available (88 swiss francs and I cannot
> > redistribute it), not developed in an open way, and it is managed by
> > an opaque private corporation (what about <https://open-stand.org/>).
> True. But DOIs are also widely used, esp. in the academic community. For 
> example, some university tenure committees will only consider publications as 
> relevant that have a DOI. If we want to retain (or attract) academic 
> participation, it would be helpful if RFCs could be made to count more 
> towards tenure. The cost is minimal. People who dislike them can ignore them. 
> People who benefit from them will use them. Everyone wins?
Yes.  Academia sets the rules, not us.  Including the DOI is of value if
it brings in more academics.


Eliot

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature