Re: [Gendispatch] Academia (Re: Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF)

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Fri, 26 February 2021 07:55 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92EA13A09B9; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 23:55:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lgDTGXmwoKx5; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 23:54:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C6A03A09B5; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 23:54:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:b9:15ed:9bd5:c92f] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:b9:15ed:9bd5:c92f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 730D960030F; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:54:50 +0200 (EET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1614326090; bh=zijAXMro91KAdyBFJ++SnB0STbkr5uOj8IuZ/QWH1QI=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=xCyG9AWD3Y40lO3bqnt3pMtPrkgYOJTMIGuZffqC70lW17Hi8zGqKioYIoyZeoSK4 boXs/ryT9ajpzBvK9TAOJaT1YoJE0Tx4XXYnRZU3HOMWeuZxX9l8XVIMm4W/lO3M+l Oy8iVb5FCLQTwrwrqunGadVsnLojBClTqaYbN3is=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <FD69867C-1AD3-401F-ADE8-224D847B2AAD@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7A3C4686-BEC1-43EE-9C4C-3BBC056713FD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Academia (Re: Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:54:49 +0200
In-Reply-To: <5a2743c6-dbbf-6f31-a0cd-9a6098b56fbb@gmail.com>
Cc: Theresa Enghardt <ietf@tenghardt.net>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, GENDISPATCH List <gendispatch@ietf.org>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <37eecb9b-f0eb-e21c-b162-b1f0339e4981@si6networks.com> <41698b83-25ff-574e-390a-65a8c3dc591a@tenghardt.net> <eba4c0ba-830c-acc2-1e6d-cab480c61ee3@si6networks.com> <e0bd1f0a-92a3-abe0-1382-dab2f312d4cd@tenghardt.net> <0e35a879-b814-ca37-5d8a-1f8e18c2d4a2@si6networks.com> <b1a58fd2-d26a-4480-9b81-67875a635ecd@tenghardt.net> <201DFFC0-89D9-4653-A500-8DDC6ACDE667@eggert.org> <5a2743c6-dbbf-6f31-a0cd-9a6098b56fbb@gmail.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: 730D960030F.A196D
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-Owm9ALAdmzjJbtfP61b3SxadoI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 07:55:03 -0000

Hi,

On 2021-2-25, at 23:21, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26-Feb-21 06:29, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> One thing we did to increase the value of RFCs to academics was to assign them DOIs, which at least for universities in some geos is a prerequisite to even recognizing RFCs as academic output.
> 
> Nevertheless, it is in general hard to get RFCs recognised as valuable for tenure and promotion purposes, compared to more traditional publication streams such as highly-rated journals.

completely agreed. DOIs don't fully solve the problem, they are a first required step. Some tenure committees operate under rules that don't makes it difficult to consider evaluating something that doesn't have a DOI.

> That's one reason we did https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1672308.1672315 but I'm not sure it has had much impact.


Yes, that is an invaluable document when RFCs are able to be considered for evaluation.

Thanks,
Lars