Is it a "technical issue"? No, but neither is booking your flight via phone, that worked just fine. Could it be made much better, more accessible, cheaper, and overall better via technology. Yes.
Is it a "technical issue"? No, but neither is booking your flight via phone, that worked just fine. Could it be made much better, more accessible, cheaper, and overall better via technology. Yes.
Maybe you could give details about what you mean by "antiquated idea behind publishing" because I'm pretty sure what I described is not 1970s speed. Now, if your point is that what I've described is not common practice, I agree completely. But that means that people need to be persuaded to use existing technical tools -- I can't see a specific step that's going to be a significant pain point (I'll grant that not everyone can/will use github, but uploading a zip archive of the paper's directory to a personal webpage is easy and is almost as good for code and data dissemination).
Other anecdotes are blogs that announce and discuss new research:
http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2012/10/nber-asset-pricing...
http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2012/09/woodford-at-jackso...
That is legitimate academic discourse, put out by an extremely established and credentialed economist, almost instantly. On blogger.
My viewpoints are limited to life sciences, where people have no idea what FTP means, let alone GIT. Also, what you did is not typical, people (at least in my field of neurobiology) have no intention of doing something like that in fear of being scooped. The antiquated idea behind publishing is the concept of doing an experiment, filtering out all the negative data, and then submitting their positive data to a journal that they think will publish their data. We've been waiting for 7 months now for a paper to get published in PNAS due to this antiquated process. 7 months to do what you did in a few minutes uploading your data online and making it public.