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

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Thu, 25 February 2021 17:30 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 172833A1D3A; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 09:30:09 -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 gqmBeDA-lwpS; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 09:30:08 -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 983E63A1D3C; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 09:30:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:5515:fa76:cc41:2fa8] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:5515:fa76:cc41:2fa8]) (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 520D56002CB; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 19:29:49 +0200 (EET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1614274189; bh=rJSq5HqV9pCbUiSHkK/WVSZqW4hqCWgGK0RwRGZegkg=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=0Dg0oBJMOrDxeUQvKonzZkakGHYSZ+cmsEOnRU1NhF8GrLvuRyBbMRLhDK3VJI2F7 OV+MFbcFL+MrWIFpBwA2V5vyZtMr1TsePL08fvp740Grm1AW/LQcaHjcpoN80JLpZJ D0OGAAWz+49cxTIXa9WNFUnzkTKLBrOMb54Vs+XE=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <201DFFC0-89D9-4653-A500-8DDC6ACDE667@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D1086A70-8696-4EB5-8207-782F1185602D"; 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: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 19:29:48 +0200
In-Reply-To: <b1a58fd2-d26a-4480-9b81-67875a635ecd@tenghardt.net>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, GENDISPATCH List <gendispatch@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Theresa Enghardt <ietf@tenghardt.net>
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>
X-MailScanner-ID: 520D56002CB.A232D
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/I-3uf4ptMQ0A9mt_La410OfykYA>
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: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 17:30:09 -0000

Hi,

On 2021-2-25, at 18:16, Theresa Enghardt <ietf@tenghardt.net> wrote:
> That is true. With ANRW, you at least get to present a short paper or poster at a workshop, so that's a step in the right direction.

that was actually the main motivation for collocating ANRW always with the IETF - typically, academics can justify conference and workshop travel much more easily than standards travel.

> Good point about publications. RFCs are publications, too, so there is definitely some ROI in (co-)authoring an RFC as an academic. However, usually the entire process takes much longer than writing academic papers. And I'm not sure how academia at large values RFCs relative to papers, but at least in the part that I know, I would say they're valued.

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.

Thanks,
Lars