Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Howdy,

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Eric C Rosen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 7/9/2018 11:24 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> the academic community's failure to value the output of the IRTF
>>
>
> I don't understand the relevance of this issue to anything being discussed
> here.
>
> If a RG wishes to publish its output in a respected academic journal, I
> don't think there is anything to stop them.
>
> I meant specifically "output as RFCs", sorry that wasn't as clear as it
needed to be.


> Maintaining the current publication process for RG output but changing the
> name from "RFC" to "IRTF-Masterpiece" is not going to make any difference
> in how the academic community values the work.
>
>
That's not what others are saying.  The problem as it has been explained to
me is that tenure committees and similar academic assessments look at the
output of the individual in part by looking at where the output has
appeared.  When it appears in a series which looks to them to be primarily
engineering specifications, it is not valued as highly.  A differently
labeled series which was entirely composed of research output might be
valued differently.

I agree with Eliot's earlier point that this is a "might", and that the
value ascribed to it depends not just on its output but on the work done to
highlight the stream's output.

regards,

Ted