[rfc-i] [irtf-discuss] RFCs accepted journal articles
hallam at gmail.com
Fri May 3 09:58:34 PDT 2013
Well first off I am actually paid to participate in IETF, so it isn't an
I did participate in IETF while I was retired but that was because:
* IETF did not charge me to participate
* IETF makes my immediate work product (specifications) available at no
* I couldn't spend all my time making daleks even if I wanted to
I am not a 'free software' zealot. I have never had a problem with someone
taking my designs and implementing them.
What sticks in my craw is when people propose that they take my work, make
it their exclusive property and limit access to it. That does not add any
value to me.
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> On 5/3/2013 9:40 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> Peer review is just another name for community feedback.
> A key component is the significant potential for rejection.
> Yes I know they dress it up as something different but seriously, I don't
>> think I am the only person who has done peer review for academic journals
>> here. the only reason I have stopped doing peer review for journals is that
>> my policy is that if someone else is going to profit from my work product
>> then they have to pay me for it.
> And yet you participate in the IETF?
> We all know where the literature is going. The UK has already established
>> the principle that all work that is supported by public funds has to be
>> available to the public without cost. That model is going to win. The UK is
>> more than big enough to establish critical mass even if the for-profit
>> publishers manage to stave off that type of policy being imposed in the US
>> by lobbying (i.e. bribing) congress.
> I completely agree that the UK is big enough to drive global issues.
> That's why the US drives on the left.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest