Re: [tor-dev] Next ten Tor Tech Reports

[Karsten Loesing <karsten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Paul,

On 8/9/12 3:03 PM, Paul Syverson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 08:29:25AM +0200, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>> On 8/8/12 8:13 PM, Mike Perry wrote:
>>> Since HotPETS doesn't count as "publishing" perhaps this should be
>>> listed as a tech report:
>>> http://fscked.org/talks/TorFlow-HotPETS-final.pdf
>>
>> I agree.  If it counted as "publishing", we'd put it on anonbib.  But
>> since that's not the case, let's put it on our tech reports list, or
>> nobody will find it.
> 
> Wait. What!? Since when did anonbib get restricted to what is
> "published"?  [...]

Ah, sorry for basing my statement above on an assumption so carelessly.
 I didn't really look whether there are only "published" papers in
anonbib, or other stuff too.  I just assumed that, and turns out that
assumption was wrong.

>> How about we put the LaTeX sources in tech-reports.git, change them to
>> use the new tech report template, assign a report number, and add a
>> footnote saying "This report was presented at 2nd Hot Topics in Privacy
>> Enhancing Technologies (HotPETs 2009), Seattle, WA, USA, August 2009."?
>> Then people can decide if they rather want to cite our tech report or
>> the HotPETs one.
> 
> This is pretty standard for tech reports at many universities,
> organizations, etc. Also I think, stuff on arxiv.

Okay.  I think it makes sense here, regardless of whether HotPETs
reports are on anonbib or not.

Best,
Karsten

_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev