Going through that list, this is what I think github style open-source prototype publishing would mean for the points made there: Left side of the board: - No

Going through that list, this is what I think github style open-source prototype publishing would mean for the points made there: Left side of the board: - No need to ship anything. Its possible to just put whatever you have out there and let people play with it by forking it. It doesn't even have to "build", e.g. other people could start by making it build reliably. There really are no limits. - All code is immediately applicable for builders, even prototype code. Immediately applicable means that they'll be able to read it, study it, toy with it (possibly interactively), see how it works, make some changes => get inspired - github is not results-driven. No pressure to "ship it", on the contrary - if you want to ship something, the common path is to fork and get it there by yourself, right? - build and exit - the exit part doesn't even apply. Right side of the board: - Source code does export knowledge to be built upon - and its even more knowledge than just old-fashioned media (videos and articles) - it exports hands-on, interactive, reshapeable, remixable, engaging knowledge. - its perhaps not long-term enough, but on the plus side it actively engages a much larger number of people. - it could indeed distract from deeper, foundational work but I think there is enough room for anyone to choose what kind of work they want to do - no need to centralize it all. For example, people could "pull" new foundational work from Victor into their own projects. - its definitely exploratory - massively exploratory as it engages more people actively on many levels and causes an innovation ripple effect. A tiny example: as soon as V8 implemented generators in JavaScript, the node.js community started experimenting with async runners. Lots of async runners were produced and ideas are still studied, analyzed and exchanged between various projects. But before V8 published it, it was all just excitement and discussion about the possibilities with zero hands-on experimentation and a much smaller number of ideas. - it is indeed ongoing - nothing needs to be shipped, no project need necessarily be done. Additionally: - it represents extreme transparency - everything open to the public - which nicely matches the scientific method. Percieved but non-existant downside: - personal recognition is harder - not quite true. Its easy to think that some things may get lost in the mass of people, but usually the contrary happens - the pioneers always get the recognition. [citation needed - this one is based on personal observations] Possible downsides: - academic recognition: no idea how academy (and related publishers) treat open-source in general. It seems like they would be a perfect match for each other as they share a lot of common principles, but so far it hasn't engaged researchers more massively... Its a third category - different from traditional research and different from industry. I believe its worth considering.