Productivity. metrics, challenges etc

Prompted by Owen on another thread -
It's a good day for me to start 'productivity' for this CG  I completed to
pieces of work last week and now can breath a little again, although not
for long- more deadlines looming

Let me start by saying that productivity is an industrialist model of the
world, generally quantified by units of output
which can be useful but must be placed in context
What are we producing here?  Metrics for Productivity of knowledge ?
qualitative or quantitative? individual or collective?

am I learning something? Is my knowledge advancing the state of the art?
am I sharing what I learn with others so that they can benefit from it?
have I recorded/taken due note of the processes and outcomes of what has
been done?
(on the surfing front, how many waves did I ride?)

 Now next- what are we going to measure in term of productivity for this
forum?

1)Since I share my work mostly by emails. by posting articles and topics I
am working on to the list
one way to measure productivity would be: how many new/innovative topics
have been shared ? To see the productivity of an online group
I can remember half a dozen off the top of my head. but there may be more-
The goal of this forum is to share knowledge on the topic of AI KR CG, the
productivity rate can be measured by
looking at the archives in terms of topics and resources and discussions
share
In terms of academic productivity, we can aim to measure the number of
publications. courses and teaching resources produced and shared - in non
academic terms we speak about value generation. income generation and wider
benefits (have we helped someone to solve a problem? have we identified
some important issue etc)
Before we can talk productivity we need to establish what metrics
Owen and others. what do you think the productivity targets and metrics
should be for this CG
considring we have about 60 members but only very few contributions from
them so far?

Additional thoughts
------------------------------
2)  Since bringing up certain topics on this list. some colleagues have
started talking/writing/publishing on these topics which were brought up
here . This is great impact. But its not measurable, because many list
subscribers learn about the new work being done here. take the good ideas
elsewhere. and when they publish or reference the topic. they do not cite
this CG as the
source of this novel work - how to measure this productivity impact?

3) Since the body of knowledge for AI KR is vast and with many
perspectives. the first goal for setting up this group was to map the
domain and set some boundaries. We have a vast body of reference works in
the Zotero library to start with. plus lots more in our private list of
references.  I have started looking at what tools can be used to analyse
the corpus. the main challenge being that the corpus is heterogeneous,

4) To uniquely leverage 3 - the body of knowledge which we are gathering
and analysing - with unique novel insights - which is something that each
of us can do after one or two years of reading on the subject we develop
unique methods - but have. become wary of  rampant plagiarism. Unscrupulous
individuals in academia may take what they learn from communities  and
discussion forums like ours and 'sell it'as their own work. We do our work
in public, they publish quietly without a mention to where they learned the
stuff from. They learn from us, then pass themselves off as leading
researchers .
 So we need to start being careful and decide what would be a clever
strategy :-)

5) You and I Owen, are fairly straight folks. we like to declare and
publish our strategies and goals. But this world is full of
malicious folks who exploit public knowledge to their own personal benefit
and even worse. they exploit the knowledge shared in good will to damage
those who have generated and shared  their goals and strategies. It's like
they learn from us the state of the art. then they can jump ahead of us and
portray us as laggards in their race  These people are vicious. they
dont publish their strategies and goals because they operate under the
radar. and this is part of their tactics.
So I have become a bit reluctant there

6) We (not only this CG) have not yet fully resolved the antagonism between
the open and the closed world

7) I am personally working on the goals which I set when this community was
started. and have not let go of them for a minute. I have produced talks,
presentations. lecture notes. coursework and papers, part of which I have
shared and on which I have had very limited feedback Have not yet had a
single contribution to any of these from members of this list. (apart from
Owen rendering  everyting him stratml which is great, but has limited use
until the parser is ready)
I am glad that Carl came on board to coordinate calls and advance some of
the productivity on stratml front
I d like to see the agenda for this calls announced to the list so that we
can enter agenda items
I have a lot of stuff I d like to share which I have not yet had the chance
to talk about here.
 So I think we should differentiate between the individual level of
productivity - what each of us is working on - and the collective level of
productivity, how much people are collaborating on. how is the productivity
measured and impact

I think some nice contribution could also come from that : maybe we could
come up with new productivity metrics for open/shared collaboration

p