I think you make excellent points, Walker, and the guidelines really seem quite well thought-out. The cynical side of me knows, however, that reviews are always going to be a crapshoot as the real challenge isn't going to be establishing guidelines per se but ensuring that a tenure committee is balanced enough in it's understanding of the work and that the proper outside reviewers for the job are brought in each time. It seems like one of the biggest problems are academics/administrators who have zero tech-understanding but don't want to admit it. They get completely starry-eyed over anything with words like "digital" or "cyber" attached and don't wish to admit that they can't tell the wheat from the chaff. If they're too frightened to put a tool through it's paces - they might have to admit they don't get it - they prefer to just ooh and ahh at a demo and then escape as quickly as possible. Stellar work is heaped in the same pile with junk. To be honest, I find this breed of academic to be just as much of an impediment as those who dismiss all IT out of hand as the instrument of death for modern culture. I say this as one who has benefitted greatly from the sudden academic cache attached to all things cyberculture and who is one of those people who is being allowed to run loose and do what I wish simply because no one else understands - nor tries to understand - what I'm doing. I take my job very seriously, but it's a situation that could easily be abused.