R devel - Aug 2006 - Affiliation Reporting Standards. was: Re: reshape scaling with large numbers of times/rows

After a question on R, Prof Brian Ripley writes:
 > However, you did not give your affiliation and I do not like giving free 
 > consultancy to undisclosed commercial organizations.  Please in future use
 > a proper signature block so that helpers are aware of your provenance.

I have one question and one comment.

Question: Are there specific standards about this for R mailing lists?
I could not find any. I don't think that there should be because, in
the context of a mailing list question (as opposed to a personal
e-mail), the person's "affiliation" does not strike me as relevant
(although Professor Ripley is free to use whatever criteria he likes
for deciding which questions he answers).

Comment: Does it make much sense to harp on a "commercial" versus
non-commercial motivation in the context of an R mailing list? I think
it makes no sense. I (like many other R users) have both commercial
and university affiliations. Are mailing list participants more
willing to answer my questions if I sign them:

-- 
David Kane
CEO
Kane Capital Management

versus

--
David Kane
Institute Fellow at IQSS
Harvard University

Moreover, just because I sign a message with a university signature
does not mean that I am using the information for academic research
just as a commercial signature does not imply the opposite. My
colleagues and I have asked many questions --- and thanks for all the
great answers! --- relating to out portfolio package, now
open-sourced.

This is also true of "full-time" academics, many of whom do extensive
consulting. Just because an academic asks a question does not mean
that the answer won't be used solely for an "undisclosed commercial
organizations," or should such questions be openly labelled as such?

Perhaps I am missing something. But the
current-standard-as-I-understand-it (use whatever signature you like)
seems perfectly fine. If R-core wants a different standard, I would,
of course, comply.

Dave

--
Dave Kane
Whatever-Affiliation-You-Want-Here

I don't think you owe anyone any explanations or descriptions of
yourself.  The only thing you really need to provide is a good description
of any problem you post as discussed on the r-help posting
guide and as discussed in the single line at the bottom of every
r-help message.

On 8/28/06, David Kane <dave at kanecap.com>
wrote:
> After a question on R, Prof Brian Ripley writes:
>  > However, you did not give your affiliation and I do not like giving
free
>  > consultancy to undisclosed commercial organizations.  Please in
future use
>  > a proper signature block so that helpers are aware of your
provenance.
>
> I have one question and one comment.
>
> Question: Are there specific standards about this for R mailing lists?
> I could not find any. I don't think that there should be because, in
> the context of a mailing list question (as opposed to a personal
> e-mail), the person's "affiliation" does not strike me as
relevant
> (although Professor Ripley is free to use whatever criteria he likes
> for deciding which questions he answers).
>
> Comment: Does it make much sense to harp on a "commercial" versus
> non-commercial motivation in the context of an R mailing list? I think
> it makes no sense. I (like many other R users) have both commercial
> and university affiliations. Are mailing list participants more
> willing to answer my questions if I sign them:
>
> --
> David Kane
> CEO
> Kane Capital Management
>
> versus
>
> --
> David Kane
> Institute Fellow at IQSS
> Harvard University
>
> Moreover, just because I sign a message with a university signature
> does not mean that I am using the information for academic research
> just as a commercial signature does not imply the opposite. My
> colleagues and I have asked many questions --- and thanks for all the
> great answers! --- relating to out portfolio package, now
> open-sourced.
>
> This is also true of "full-time" academics, many of whom do
extensive
> consulting. Just because an academic asks a question does not mean
> that the answer won't be used solely for an "undisclosed
commercial
> organizations," or should such questions be openly labelled as such?
>
> Perhaps I am missing something. But the
> current-standard-as-I-understand-it (use whatever signature you like)
> seems perfectly fine. If R-core wants a different standard, I would,
> of course, comply.
>
> Dave
>
> --
> Dave Kane
> Whatever-Affiliation-You-Want-Here
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>