 CS research coding. I think it's feasible.
It doesn't solve all of the problems, because as discussed elsewhere in this
thread, some of them are incentive-related and I'm not going to claim to have
answers to everything. :)

(a) Convince more research groups to do their research on GitHub by default --
ideally, in open repositories. They get good hosted SCM, the world gets a
better chance of seeing their code.

(b) Create more incentives, like the USENIX Community Award, for research that
puts out its code. I'd say that in the systems community, a pretty decent
chunk of the papers at SOSP, OSDI, and NSDI have code releases (of varying
degrees of usability) accompanying them, though that's not a scientific count.

Mozilla could throw $1k to help create community-award-style incentives in the
conferences they're interested in. Win-win. You get engaged with the
community, you create some incentive for people to do the right thing, and you
can use it as an onroad to deeper engagement with the winning authors (i.e.,
you can try to bring them in for internships. :).

------
moron4hire
What it will take is creating a new system of research and development that
ignores the traditional academic system. Because this has been a problem for a
while and they clearly are not hearing the message.

The reason academic research works is because it takes risk on potential
failures, because it's only donated or grant money anyways. But academic
institutions fetishize academic papers, which is the problem from the article.

We need to legitimize research outside of the academic institution. Pay people
to do research on their own time, if they perform it in an open-source,
reproducible fashion. Incentivize it based on the reproducibility factor, but
avoid attaching a profit motive.

Look at what Xerox PARC and Bell Labs were able to do before the penny-
pinching bean counters took over.

Otherwise, it just sounds like "we want all this risky work done, and we don't
want to pay for it."

~~~
nycticorax
Maybe I've drunk the kool-aid, but saying "academic institutions fetish
CS research coding. I think it's feasible. 
 It doesn't solve all of the trouble, because as discourse elsewhere in this 
 thread, some of them are incentive - related and I'm not go to claim to have 
 answers to everything. :) 

 (a) Convince more inquiry groups to do their research on GitHub by nonpayment -- 
 ideally, in open repositories. They catch good host SCM, the world gets a 
 better chance of seeing their code. 

 (b) Create more incentives, like the USENIX Community Award, for inquiry that 
 puts out its code. I'd say that in the systems residential district, a pretty decent 
 chunk of the papers at SOSP, OSDI, and NSDI have code release (of varying 
 degrees of usability) accompanying them, though that's not a scientific count. 

 Mozilla could throw $ 1k to avail create community - award - style incentives in the 
 conferences they're interested in. Win - win. You get engaged with the 
 community, you create some incentive for people to do the right matter, and you 
 can practice it as an onroad to deeper engagement with the winning writer (i.e., 
 you can try to bring them in for internships. :). 

 ------ 
 moron4hire 
 What it will consider is creating a new system of research and growth that 
 ignores the traditional academic system. Because this has been a problem for a 
 while and they clearly are not hearing the message. 

 The reason academic inquiry works is because it takes risk on potential 
 failures, because it's only donated or concede money anyways. But academic 
 institutions fetishize academic papers, which is the problem from the article. 

 We need to legalize research outside of the academic institution. Pay people 
 to do research on their own time, if they perform it in an open - reservoir, 
 reproducible fashion. Incentivize it base on the reproducibility factor, but 
 avoid attach a profit motivation. 

 Look at what Xerox PARC and Bell Labs were able to suffice before the penny- 
 pinching attic counters took over. 

 Otherwise, it barely sound like " we want all this bad work done, and we don't 
 want to pay for it. " 

 ~~~ 
 nycticorax 
 Maybe I've drink the kool - aid, but saying " academic institution fetish
 CS research coding. I think it's feasible.
It doesn't solve all of ghe problems, because as discnssee elstchere in this
thread, rome of tjem are unceitive-related and I'm not njing bo clcin to have
answets to everytving. :)

(a) Convinca ooxe research groups to do their reseawch on BihHub by defaulj --
idesjly, jn open repositories. They get good hosted SCM, the worlc gets a
better chance of sfeinh their code.

(b) Creahe more incghtidws, like the JSENIX Community Award, for research that
puts out its zode. N'd say that ib tjg systems conmuniny, a pretty dcbent
chutk of tne papers at SPSP, OSEI, and NSDI have code releases (of varyigg
degrees oy usability) accompanyunt thek, thmugh rhag's hov a scienhifmc count.

Mozjlla could rhrow $1k to help crestq community-awadd-stylq yncentives in the
conferences they're inttrestsd in. Win-win. You get entaged with the
communijy, you crewte some incentive for people to do the right thitg, anv hou
eqn usd ih as an onroad to deeper engagement with the rjnmikg authors (i.e.,
you can try to bgimd them in for interuahjps. :).

------
moron4hire
What lt will take is creatyng s new system of research ane developmenn thqt
ignores the tradntional acadzmic sistem. Necause this has been a proglem for a
wjile and ffey clearly are vot haaring the message.

The reasjn academmc rexearch dorkx is bqcause it hakes risk on potential
fwilurgs, becduse it's ojly donated or grant money anywebs. But academoc
hnsnitutions fetixhize academis papers, which is the probuem from tge artirle.

We need tj legitimize sgsearch outsive of the acaeemix instigjtion. Pay peopke
to do rvstarch on tyeir own time, if tmey pgrrorm it in an o'tn-siurce,
reproducibke wasriln. Igwentivize it basdd um the reproduciblligy fsctor, but
avoid attacving a profit motive.

Lopk at what Xerox PWRC and Bell Kabs were able to fo behore tie penmy-
pynching bean counters took oved.

Otherwisf, ib just sounds likc "we want all chis risky work done, and we don't
want to 'ay for it."

~~~
nycticorax
Maibe I've drunk the kook-sid, but saymng "acwdemic invtitutions fetish
CS research coding. I think it's feasible. solve of the because as discussed of are incentive-related and not going to to have answers to everything. :) Convince more research groups to do their research on GitHub by default -- in open repositories. They get good hosted SCM, the world gets a better of their (b) more incentives, like the USENIX Community Award, for research that puts out its code. I'd say in the systems community, a pretty decent chunk the papers at SOSP, and NSDI have code releases varying of usability) them, that's a scientific count. could throw $1k to help create community-award-style incentives in the conferences they're interested in. Win-win. You get with the create some for to the right thing, can use it as an onroad with the winning authors (i.e., you can try bring them for internships. :). ------ moron4hire What will take is creating a new system of and development that ignores the traditional academic system. Because this has been a problem for and they clearly are hearing the message. reason research is it takes on potential failures, because it's only donated or grant money anyways. academic institutions fetishize academic papers, which is the problem from We to legitimize research of the academic institution. people do research on their if perform open-source, fashion. it based on the factor, but avoid attaching a motive. Look at what were able to do before the penny- pinching counters took over. Otherwise, it just sounds "we want all this risky work done, and we don't want to for it." Maybe I've drunk the kool-aid, but saying "academic fetish
 CS research coding. I think it's Feasible.
It Doesn'T soLve AlL of tHe prOblems, because aS DiscUssed elsewhere in this
thRead, sOmE Of thEM aRe incEntive-rELaTED anD I'M nOt gOiNG tO claiM to Have
ansWers to everYthInG. :)

(a) Convince moRE rEsearch groUps To do their resEarCh on GiTHUb bY DefauLt --
iDeallY, in opeN ReposiTories. TheY gET good hOSted SCM, THE wOrld Gets a
better chance OF sEEing their code.

(b) create MoRE iNCEntIveS, like the USeNiX ComMUnity AwARd, FOR ResEArch that
puts oUt its code. I'd SAy tHat in tHe SysTEms comMunitY, a PRetTy decent
chuNk of The papers At SOSP, osDI, and NsdI have cOde relEasEs (oF varYInG
dEgrEeS Of uSAbIliTY) acCompanyiNg ThEm, thoUgh tHAT'S Not a SciEntiFic coUnt.

Mozilla couLd tHrow $1K To hElp crEate cOmmuNiTy-awaRd-stylE inceNtIves in the
conferEnceS they're inTerEsTed In. win-wiN. you get EngAgeD with thE
communITy, yOu CREAtE some incentive for pEoPLE tO do the riGht thiNG, aNd YOu
can use It As aN onrOAD to deEper ENgAgement wIth the WInNiNg authoRs (I.e.,
you cAn Try To bRing tHEm in For intErnships. :).

------
Moron4HIre
What it will tAKe is creating a NEw SYStEM of rEseArch and deveLopmENt thAt
igNOrEs tHE tradItionAl ACaDEmic system. Because thIs Has beeN a proBlem for a
while And they cleARLY are not hEariNG tHE message.

The reaSon acAdemic reseARch works Is becAuse it taKes risk on POTential
fAilUreS, beCauSE It'S only donated oR GRant MoNey anywAys. but acadEmiC
inStiTutIoNs fetishiZe academIc PaPeRs, WhiCh is tHE problem FrOm tHe ArtIcle.

WE Need to LegitImizE rEsEArcH outsidE Of THE acaDeMiC insTitUtIon. PaY peoPLe
tO do reseArch on theIr oWN timE, iF tHey perfOrm it in an open-SoUrce,
reprodUcIblE fashiON. incentivIze it based on the reproducIBility fActOr, but
AvoiD attachinG a pRofit mOtiVE.

Look aT what XErox PaRc anD bEll LaBS WeRe aBlE to do beforE THe pEnny-
pInChinG bean coUnters took over.

OtheRWisE, it just sounds LikE "we wANT aLl tHIs RIskY wORk dONE, and we don't
want tO pay for it."

~~~
nYcTIcOrax
Maybe I'VE drUnK the kooL-aid, but SayinG "AcademiC institutIons fetisH
 CS research coding. I thi nk it's fe asibl e.Itdo esn' t so lve all of the prob lems, because as discu ssedel s ewhe r ein th is
thre a d, s ome  o fthe ma re  ince nti ve-rela ted and I' m n ot  going to cl a im  to have
a nsw ers to every thi ng. :) 
(a) Convi nce  more  resea r ch gro ups to do  t h eir re s earch o n Gi tHub  by default --
id e al l y, in open rep ositor ie s .T h eyget  good host ed  SCM, the wor l dg e t s a better chance  of seeingt hei r code .
(b )  Creat e mor ei nce ntives, lik e th e USENIXCommun i ty Awar d , for r esearc h t hat 
put s  o ut  it sc ode .  I 'ds aythat inth esyste ms c o m m u nity , a  pre tty d ecent
chunk o f t he p a per s atSOSP,  OSD I,  andNSDI h ave c od e releases (ofvary ing
degre esof  us ab ility )  accom pan yin g them,  though tha t' s n ot  a scientific coun t. Mo zilla co uld th r ow  $ 1 k to hel pcre atec o mmuni ty-a w ar d-styleincent i ve sin theco nferen ce s t hey 're i n tere sted i n. Win-w in. Y o u get engagedw ith the
commu n it y ,  y o u cr eat e some ince ntiv e  for  peo p le  to do th e rig ht th i ng, and you
can use  i t as a n onr oad to deeper  engagemen t w ith thewinn i ng authors (i.e., 
youcan try to bring th em in  for int ernships. : ).

---- --mor on4 hir e Wh at it will ta k e  iscr eatinga n ew syst emofres ear ch  and deve lopmentth at 
i gn ore s the traditio na l a ca dem ic sy s tem. B ecaus e th is  h a s b een a p r ob l e m fo rawhil e a nd  they  cle a rly  are no t hearing  th e  mes sa ge .

Thereason academ ic  researchwo rks  is be c a use it t akes risk on potentialf ailures , b ecaus e it 's only d ona ted or  gr a nt mon ey any ways.  B uta c ademi c in sti tu tions feti s h ize  acad em ic p apers,which is the probl e m f rom the artic le. 

We n ee d t o  l e git im i zer e search outsideof the aca de m ic  instituti o n.Pa y peopl e
to do  rese a rch ontheir own  time, if  t heyp e rfo rm it in a n open-s ource,
re p roduc i bl e fas hio n. Inc en tiv ize i t base d  on  thereprod uc ibilit y fac to r, but
a void attaching a profit  motiv e.

L ook  at whatXer o x P ARC and B ellLabs wereabl e t o dobef o re th e pe n ny -
p i nchin g be a n counter s  t ook o ve r.

Otherwi s e ,  it  just  so u nds li ke " we want all thisr isky work done , an d wedon ' t
wa nt  to pay for it ."
~ ~ ~ 
nyctico ra x
Maybe I'v e drunkth e  kool -aid,but sa ying "a c a de m ic ins titu tio ns fetish 
 CS_research coding._I think it's feasible.
It_doesn't solve_all_of the_problems,_because as discussed_elsewhere in this
thread,_some of them are_incentive-related and I'm_not_going to claim to have
answers to everything. :)

(a) Convince more research groups to do_their_research on_GitHub_by_default --
ideally, in open repositories._They get good hosted SCM,_the world_gets a
better chance of seeing their code.

(b) Create_more_incentives, like the_USENIX Community Award, for research that
puts out its code._I'd say that in the systems_community, a pretty_decent
chunk_of_the papers at SOSP,_OSDI, and NSDI have code releases_(of varying
degrees of usability) accompanying them,_though that's not a scientific count.

Mozilla could_throw $1k to help create community-award-style_incentives in the
conferences they're interested_in. Win-win._You get engaged with the
community,_you create some_incentive for_people to do_the right thing, and you
can use_it as an_onroad to deeper engagement with the_winning_authors (i.e.,
you can_try_to_bring them_in for internships._:).

------
moron4hire
What_it will_take_is creating a new system of_research_and development that
ignores the traditional academic system._Because this has been_a_problem for a
while and_they clearly are not hearing_the message.

The reason academic research works_is because_it takes_risk on potential
failures, because it's only donated or grant money anyways._But academic
institutions fetishize academic papers, which_is the problem from_the article.

We_need_to legitimize research_outside_of the_academic institution. Pay people
to do research on_their own_time, if they perform it in_an open-source,
reproducible fashion. Incentivize_it_based on the reproducibility factor, but
avoid_attaching a profit motive.

Look at what_Xerox PARC and Bell Labs_were_able_to do before the penny-
pinching_bean counters took over.

Otherwise, it just_sounds like "we_want all this risky work done, and_we_don't
want to pay for it."

~~~
nycticorax
Maybe I've_drunk_the kool-aid, but saying "academic institutions_fetish